Day 4 Assignments

[KANNAN MENON]

DAY FOUR ASSIGNMENT 1

Kannan Menon BI STACKING SUPENSE

What I Iearned from this assignment (see below).

1. After the first murder, every character in the hero’s orbit (other than Gus) becomes a suspect in the murder (e.g. Roxy) or a person who contributes to the confusion surrounding the murder (e.g, the IA officer who gets hold of Nick’s confi file but ends up a victim).

2. This leads to several dead ends… but each dead end can be deadly for the hero depending on the way it is resolved. In Roxy’s case, she tries to take out Nick. The IA officer ends up shot, but that only throws more suspicion on Nick.

3. Key thrill-arousing element are the 2 car chases and the two ice-pick scenes (where CT is actually breaking up ice). That, I think helps create a rhythm to the screenplay. Of course, we also see two ice-pick murders (which opens the door for a possible third at the end of the movie).

4. There are also three sex scenes (somewhat similarly choreographed which are intended to create a degree of confusion in the audience. As BI is an erotic thriller, these scenes also work to heighten tension.

5. I also think the 2 interrogation scenes (which are also similarly choreographed) are important. And when CT is interrogated, her self exposure is very powerful because it shifts the sympathy of the audience to her because she confounds the semi-hostile group of male interrogators!!

[Kim Jaspers]

DAY FOUR ASSIGNMENT 1

I learned that Clues presented through action and dialogue in the first scenes with each of the characters show us 1) who they are underneath their veneers and 2) what they’re capable of. The movie continues on this path of building MIS in each scene, going from character to character, presenting either subliminal or more overt clues to the viewer.

Here are my takes on the introductions of each character:

1) Nick has problems with authority noted in the crime scene investigation. A tourist shooting lands him in the office of the police psychologist, Beth, with whom he discusses his 39 days of sobriety and presents his drinking problem and lack of regard for Beth.

2) Beth alludes to a relationship with Nick, point out her lack of professional ethics or possibly a deeper disturbance. She physically attacks Nick in his apartment in response to his treatment of her. Unethical and unhinged (and probably with a borderline personality disorder), we understand that Beth may be capable of greater violence, but we don’t understand her connection to the victim yet.

2) Nick and Gus meet Roxy, and we learn that there is someone in love with Catherine who could murder out of jealousy. Roxy’s the first red-herring.

3) Catherine has a degree in psychology, communicates in mind games, and excels at sussing out others’ insecurities and weaknesses to exploit them. Coupled with the novel she’s written describing Boz’s killing in detail, that sets her up as the potential killer. When they haul her in for questioning, we see how Catherine flouts police authority and uses her sexuality as a psychological weapon. She is the second red herring.

4) Subsequent scenes repeat this sequence of presenting an additional piece of information about each character to build on the previous pieces and interweaving them into a puzzle for the viewer to unravel.

5) The last scene leaves the viewer wondering if Catherine is the real killer, which is a gratifying ending. Everything we thought we had figured out gets turned on its head.

[Alan Larson]

Assignment 1:

Subject Line: Alan’s BI Stacking Suspense

Things I learned about Stacking Suspense watching Basic Instinct:

· Most of the scenes and combinations of shorter scenes included Mystery, Suspense and Intrigue. Lots of layers existed in nearly every scene. Each scene performed multiple tasks.

· Crime Scene Investigation has advanced dramatically since this movie was made. (No mention of DNA evidence, etc.)

· Dr. Beth continually not fully disclosing information, greatly added to the M.I.S. and made her appear to be guilty. I.e.:

– Dr. Beth knew Catherine from college and never mentioned it.

– Dr. Beth tells Nick about her ex-husband – “Didn’t last long.” When in fact, he was murdered with a .38 caliber bullet, same as Lt. Nilsen.

· The ice pick under the bed in the closing scene completely changed my conclusions.

– Given the last scene, I believe Catherine is not the Red Herring, but is the actual Villain who setup Dr. Beth, and is the real killer. Gus’s killer didn’t have gloves on. How/where could Dr. Beth have cleaned her hands before Nick shoots her? Why didn’t the CSI team find where she washed her hands?

– Catherine broke into Nick’s apartment with no trace. She could’ve easily broken into Dr. Beth’s place and planted evidence. Not to mention that Dr. Beth’s lock was broken. And Dr. Beth’s answering machine had “a new tape,” also easily replaced by Catherine.

[Diana Ceres]

Diana’s BI Stacking Suspense

What I learned: I got more clarity on the distinctions between Mystery, Intrigue, and Suspense, and am
starting to see how they play off each other and how a lot of the scenes leave
you hanging, like the mystery is the tapestry of the movie and the suspense and
intrigue play off that and are woven into the tapestry in the right places. I
think this will help me especially when we work with each of them separately,
so I can get an even deeper understanding of these elements. I also liked how
the characters also have MIS built into them. And how important it is to build
stakes into the scenes to create a more thrilling story. Ex: Is someone going
to be killed? Is someone risking their life? Is someone in danger and not
knowing it? Etc. I also noticed that not every scene in the movie had every
element of MIS, but most did and the ones that didn’t were heavy on the other
two.

[Diana Ceres]

For some reason I can’t close this lesson out as completed. It’s making me reply again.

[KANNAN MENON]

KANNAN MENON ASSIGNEMENT 4 SOTL

What I learned from doing Assignments 5 (BI & SOTL)

I learned that that if you do the suggested breakdowns you begin noticing the use of other qualities that add to the overall effect. For example, I because extremely aware of “tone” in several scenes. In Basic Instinct it was an erotic tone, generated by the nudity, the sex scenes, the basic story. At times, this became erotic horror when the sex results in a knife-pick murder.

In SOTL the tone is horror. The B Bill’s killings are not erotic or out of sexual need. They are utilitarian. So the real horror is generated by Lecter, e.g., the scene with the crucified cop and how the other cops are killed, the head in the jar in the storage locker, etc. Which then raises a question as to who is the real Villain in this movie…

The other thing that surfaces when you do this kind of analysis is the use of repeated motifs. Clarice has descend into Hell to meet Lecter. The kidnapped girl is held in a pit. Clarice’s memory of the screaming labs is echoed by the yipping of the hurt dog (but the dog survives, unlike the lamb).

Once you do an analysis of this kind, your mind takes over and you begin adding more categories that tend to support the MIS scenario and give it greater depth.

[Michael Yorick]

Mike’s SOTL & BI stacking suspense

1. Each scene in a strong thriller has an MIS – true for both BI and SOTL

2. The intensity of the MIS for characters can change over the course of the film. Catharine’s mystery seemed to decrease, while Beth’s increased.

3. Most good scenes pose a question that propels the viewer forward into the succeeding scene.

4. The most impactful scenes had readily identifiable stakes included.

[Alan Larson]

Day 4 – Assignment 2

Subject Line: Alan’s SOTL Stacking Suspense<div>

Things I learned about Stacking Suspense watching Silence of the Lambs:

· Day 4 – Assignment 2 was a beast.

· I watched the movie and read the script for this assignment. When I read this script for the first time many years ago, I thought the script was magical, poetic, awesome. It’s still those things, however, now I see it as much too dense, too detailed, too overpowering.

· SOTL continually amps up Mystery, Intrigue and Suspense.

· Once Catherine Martin is abducted, where she’s being held and will the FBI be able to rescue her are an overarching Mystery and Suspense of every scene until she’s saved. However, nearly every major scene also has its own additional MIS.

· SOTL had a lot of intrigue (underhanded, devious, covert, clandestine, etc.): Buffalo Bill lures Catherine Martin’s help with his fake injured arm. Clarice offers Hannibal a fake trade. Dr. Chilton bugs Hannibal’s & Clarice’s conversation, then double-crosses the FBI’s plans.

· Near the ending, SOTL had brilliant intercutting between Crawford’s team surrounding the house and Buffalo Bill preparing to kill Catherine Martin in his cellar. The FBI fake delivery man pushes the front door buzzer. Buffalo Bill answers his front door. But instead, it’s Clarice looking for Mrs. Lippman. Extremely clever misdirection.

· In addition to the MIS, several of the men (Dr. Chilton, the Smithsonian experts, Miggs, Hannibal) hit on or were lewd talking to Clarice, which added another level of drama/tension.

· Per our class instruction, I don’t plan to use any flashbacks in my thrillers, however, I think they kinda’ worked in SOTL.

· Looking back at my own scenes, they mostly just advance the plot, so they all need to do much more work.

· I’m still not clicking with INTRIGUE. I’ve got to spend more work on that area and incorporate more intrigue into my own scripts.
</div>

[Ron Johnson]

Ron Johnson – What I learned from analyzing MIS in these films.

Mostly that good writing connects every character, desire, action within a context or world we are invited to enter. These desires create the M.I.S. of the story. They are all linked in a way that fleshes out each of them (even if it’s a little far fetched that so many people in one setting would be so maniacal).

Basic Instinct is the world of erotic sex and murder in the setting of a detective story. Therefore, the characters reflect aspects of that world which illustrate the dangers swirling around it. Ex: Nick has struggled with addiction and is suddenly tempted to drink, smoke and do coke, being seduced by the suspect, is pulled into a darker world that puts the case and his career in jeopardy. Gus is the voice of reason, who is in control of his vices. The Chief and DA stick to their political motivations wanting to let the whole thing die off, in effect looking out for themselves/careers.

Catherine is given over to her vices as she uses people for herself/career. She is manipulative and this trait is what drives the relationship between her, Nick and the police department. In this we see character driving plot in context of a specific world. Their desires play upon each other in a kind of dance that give M.I.S. Catherine especially offers mystery as you cannot tell whether she’s telling the truth about anything.

With Nick giving in to vices of drinking and having sex with the suspect, Beth the psychologist compromised by obsession with Nick, the police department looking out for itself, begs the question, how can justice be served here?

SOTL is a psychological thriller that edges horror. The world is that of the darkest members of society – the psycho-killer and the authorities who are forced to deal with them. In this context the best hero character is the opposite of the villain, instead of a brilliant, ruthless, powerful killer with no limits on his behavior, she’s a wet behind the ears trainee with a code of conduct, young woman, skilled but not proven yet. These two minds will go up against each other in a game of cat and mouse, each wanting something from the other – desire driving plot in a twisty maze of exposition.

Her desire for justice and to forge a career compels her to do that which most people wouldn’t think of, enter the domain of a serial killer.

HL’s devious, manipulatve nature lends itself to mystery as we aren’t sure anything he tells us is true. His cryptic messaging from his own distorted desires offer a web of lies and half-truths that must be vetted. His evil distorted nature creates the suspense and much intrigue as we anticipate his cannibalistic tendencies to come out and we fear it will be Clarise.

[Kim Jaspers]

DAY 4, Assignment 2 – The Silence of the Lambs

I learned that MIS must be present in every scene, or the scene doesn’t belong in the movie. I also learned the few times when I couldn’t find the “intrigue,” per se, in a scene, I could still find character motivation.

[Frank Fuller]

Subject Line: Frank Fuller’s BI Stacking Suspense – Assignment 1 Basic Instinct

What I Learned Doing This Assignment:

1. Every scene needs to have some mix of MIS.

2. MIS is best when it reveals character in the process.

3. There’s more M and I in the beginning and more S at the end typically, but it’s still best to have some remaining M and I at the end that allow the final twist (like the ice pick on the floor under the bed).

4. Sometimes an M, I and/or S is introduced in a scene and then answered in the next scene. Cliffhangers fall in this category and make for a good scene break. These are the quick paybacks. The more important story-level MIS don’t get answered until an act or two later.

5. There are lots of plot holes and massively bad policing in BI, but it still works because the characters, the story and the MIS are good. Good police work and asking some obvious questions would have had her in the pokey in Act 1.

6. Both BI and SOTL are psychological thrillers. I find the best thrillers, even if they aren’t psychological thrillers, include psych elements. Figuring out what makes people tick makes for good MIS.

7. Analyzing scene-by-scene is a good way to go. But it’s also critical to look at the story development on a larger scale. The larger scale is what makes or breaks the story – how the plot unfolds, how the revelations are time-released.

8. Sexual tension drips in almost every scene. Not if, but when will Nick and Catherine consummate? Sex sells. You need at least a little, even if only hinted at, to add interest.

9. Addiction, money, drugs, danger and excess also play a role for both N and C: cigarettes, drugs, sex and the ultimate, murder. The scenes roll along with all of this as explicit undercurrent.

10. Key elements that made BI work

a. You don’t see the killer’s face in the opening scene. Catherine (C) is the obvious choice. Then we meet Roxy (R) and think maybe she did it. Or maybe they are a tag team. Later, we meet Dr. Beth (B) and only after a few anomalies do we suspect her. They all have about the same body type and faces are similar. One suspect would have been boring. Two interesting but three made it a three-body problem and most interesting. Four would have been too many

b. C and R: Not sure if Joe Eszterhas meant moviegoers to think that C&R might be acting as a tag team to provide alibis for one another, but I thought that initially. It’s good to create ambiguity (doesn’t have to be explicitly stated) to let people’s minds create their own intrigues. Is C the lover and R the killer. Do we think Nick (N) and Roxy might get together – that also entered my mind.

c. Every psychological thriller should have a therapist in it if the therapy yields a clue or a threat or, better yet, the therapist has some larger role in the story (aka Dr. Beth).

d. I timed the scene lengths. It’s good to mix long and short scenes to provide pacing. Like a great song plays with tempo, volume, rhythm and length.

e. The MIS is in your face in BI. C taunts N at every turn with evidence that she’s guilty: her books, the ice pick, how death follows her, the friends she keeps. How could she not be guilty? It all works if you totally suspend your disbelief which I was happy to do because the backdrop of it all is sexual tension.

f. The story would have been dull, if all roads led to C. At the 1 hour mark, B begins to look suspicious. Could she be the killer?

g. There are always a couple of big scenes, the long scenes, the intense one-on-ones or many-on-one that ramp up MIS. Scene 12, C’s interrogation scene at police headquarters is such a scene. These scenes establish the conflict in stark relief. There’s no beating around the bush: Catherine is in control and has her interrogators off-kilter and pussy-whipped.

h. Location/setting can add to MIS: the Studio 54 type club, the expensive beach house with spectacular views, etc.

i. There are 2 car chases in the movie, adding action to a script in almost an obligatory fashion. Roxy dies after trying to hit-and-run N at the 88 minute mark. She’s no longer a suspect – it’s down to B and C. The next scene is B.

j. Twists are essential:

i. C is bisexual.

ii. Roxy does get jealous – is Nick different than the previous men in C’s life.

iii. C says there was a Lisa Olbermann (Hoberman) that stalked her and copied her look in college: the was at the 1 hour 31 minute mark of the movie. Nick looks into it – turns out it was B

iv. B asks N if C mentioned Lisa Olbermann casually, slipped it in knowing he would follow it up “because that’s what I’d do”. And at the time I watched the scene it did seem to come out of the blue (I even wrote it down on the scene analysis), as if Joe Eszterhas added that twist then because the screenplay had hit the 90 minute mark, with 30 minutes to go in the movie.

v. B vs. C – who can outwit the other. Hazel Dobkins – why is C hanging out with her? The Internal Affairs file doc is missing. The IA man, Nilsen, killed in his car by a 38 revolver. B’s husband dies by a 38 revolver.

vi.

k. The taunting cat and mouse: N tells C he’s going to catch her. C says N can’t handle her.

l. Tidying up: all the unexplained clues get answered in the police station as officers report what they learned upon following up. Beth is framed.

11. How many scenes do the major players participate in?

a. Catherine: 1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 37, 42

b. Roxie: 3, 27, 30, 31

c. Beth: 5, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 25, 32, 35, 39

d. Nick: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

e. Clues implicating C: 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 29

f. Twists:

Nick: 41/42 scenes

Catherine: 16/42 scenes

Beth: 10/42 scenes

Roxie: 4/42 scenes

12. Working it out: it took Joe Eszterhas 13 days to write the screenplay but he’d mulled it over for a decade. It’s clear he was working out a lot of problems along the way and fitting the pieces together into a story that held together (ignoring certain obvious omissions like DNA analysis).

a. Writing one scene is easy. But, plotting a coherent whole is difficult. The necessary characters; the pacing; the introduction of clues and twists; the scene progressions are the tricky parts – that requires writing and rewriting. Eszterhas no doubt wrote an outline before he wrote the screenplay in 13 days. And the 13 days may be apocryphal.

b. What were the problems that Eszterhas had to deal with along the way

i. He probably starts with C is a writer who writes about her murders as an alibi. Now, he needs other characters to throw N off the scent

ii. He needs to narrow down the potential guilty parties to two. Roxy becomes expendable.

iii. He needs a backstory for Beth that makes her look guilty but he can’t let on with that possibility until later in the book – the first hint of it is in Scene 15 and then she looks like show knows a lot more at the 1 hour mark of the movie.

[Karen Grube]

My sincere thanks for taking the time to go through Basic Instinct and how Joe Eszterhas developed the script. I could barely get through the film. But your response post brought out so many great points to learn from that I genuinely appreciated it. Frankly, I thought too much of the story was “forced” in a way, that it was too convoluted. My biggest problem though was that I never really liked Nick. And the way we’re supposed to think Catherine manipulates him into backsliding on drinking and smoking seemed completely implausible. Actually, the only character I had any real sympathy for is Gus.

I’ll continue reflecting on your notes as I move through the course.

[Diana Ceres]

Day 4: Assignment 2

Diana’s SOTL Stacking Suspense

What I learned: It was really interesting to see the interconnectedness of each of the elements of suspense as well as the inner elements within and between the characters. This movie was a masterpiece in suspense. Almost every scene was jam-packed with mystery, intrigue and suspense. There was brilliant subtext, which added to the intrigue. And the suspense kept building until the protagonist was in the worst possible situation she could be in: face to face with the serial killer she had been hunting down. I know this wasn’t part of the assignment, but I also appreciated the gradient of change with Clarice. She was a well-rounded character and her transformation was credible, and the butterfly metaphor was not lost on me. Loved how the writer layered so many elements to work in tandem, both on and beneath the surface. A true cinematic masterpiece. Gets better every time I watch it.

[Frank Fuller]

Subject Line: Frank Fuller’s BI Stacking Suspense – Assignment 2 The Silence of the Lambs

What I Learned Doing This Assignment:

1. It’s hard being pithy – little squares constrain how much we can write and I found that I wrote all over the pages. Sometimes, deciding if something was a mystery or intrigue was difficult. They seemed to blend together.

2. Every scene induces questions. Why? Who? Wait a second, what?

3. From the very beginning, we want to know why is Clarice, the agent in training, special? We learn this in ensuing scenes: her analysis, her smarts and ability to handle difficult people. And her sincerity and the simple fact that she’s a woman and will appeal to Lechter.

4. Each scene makes you want to watch the next scene. In particular, there’s anticipation to see the next Clarice/Hannibal scene.

5. The title itself sits in the back of your mind – when will the meaning of the title be revealed?

6. We all hate the self-promoting, slimy Chilton. We expect Hannibal to finish him off. But, it didn’t happen. And at movie’s end, when Clarice is told she has a phone call, we’re thinking it’s the Senator or the President calling (that was done with a cheap trick since Crawford urged her to take the phone call), so there was no sense it could be Lechter. Instead of the President, we get Lechter in a Panama hat. And then we see Chilton. And instead of feeling bad for Chilton, we secretly cheer that he will be eaten. Crazy.

7. Like Basic Instinct, at heart this is a psychological thriller. Will Clarice impress Hannibal enough that he will work with her? Is she smart enough? Sincere and truthful enough?

8. We love the twists: Chilton listening in on Clarice’s phony offer to Hannibal (which was perhaps the only false note of the movie – Hannibal should have smelled that phoniness.) But, then Chilton tries to grab the limelight which takes the story in a totally new direction.

9. Who’s the villain? We have two. BB is the villain being hunted. But Lechter always eclipses him. Lechter is who fascinates us. Lechter is the real embodiment of evil. Lechter and Clarice – two opposite personalities who share one important gift: the ability to profile people.

10. Intrigue or Mystery: What is BB up to – gradually we come to realize he’s sewing a female skin for himself.

11. Who’s the victim? There are several. The Senator’s daughter is the focal point. But, when we see how she acts in the well, she’s crude and unappealing. Perhaps, Clarice is really a potential victim, but she’s strong and resilient. “The world’s more interesting with you in it,” says Lechter. And, a better place, but that’s not how Lechter sees the world.

12. The suspense ramps up at the end when the FBI SWAT team (idiotically) flies off to Chicago, and now it’s going to be Clarice vs. BB, mano a mano.

13. We don’t meet Hannibal Lechter until Scene 5, but we get the buildup to him in the briefings – Can the real Hannibal live up to the buildup? Yes, in spades.

14. How many scenes do the major players participate in:

a. Clarice: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41

b. Hannibal Lechter: 5, 9, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 41

c. Buffalo Bill: 11, 17, 19, 20, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39

[Diana Ceres]

Have placed my responses a few times but I cannot close out the assignment in the tracker for some reason.

[Dmitry Krasovskiy]

Day 4. Dmitry Krasovskiy. Assignment 1. Bi stacking suspense.

I studied what scenes and in what sequence are needed to create tension and reveal the main mystery. I see 42 scenes which has it own finished structure.

[Karen Grube]

Day Four: Assignment 1 – Basic Instinct

Karen Grube’s BI Stacking Suspense

I had a hard time even making it through this film. I’m not a Joe Eszterhas fan generally. I don’t like his dialog or how his stories develop. There were too many coincidences-that-turn-out-not-to-be-coincidences in particular and overall this story is too complex. There’s no one to cheer for, no one to hope for. The ‘stacking’ of mystery, intrigue, and suspense were too obvious and “on the nose,” like the dialog and the killings. Besides that, the police procedure portion of the story was way off. What I learned from this assignment was not to be so obvious.

There’s a Joe Eszterhas quote on IMDB where he says, “Screenwriters are supposed to be neither seen nor heard. I certainly violated that rule. Among others.” He was, I would assume, referring to himself publicly, but I think the same applies to writing the script. Let your characters do the talking, not you. Let the mystery, intrigue, and suspense unfold and don’t force feed them to the audience like spoon feeding spinach to a child.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 12 months ago by  Karen Grube.

[Karen Grube]

Day Four: Assignment 2 – Silence of the Lambs

Karen Grube’s BI Stacking Suspense

Here’s a link to my Silence of the Lambs Thriller Chart. Please let me know if you have difficulty accessing it. It took me several hours over three days to complete. I hope someone finds it helpful.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/web4wyy62x60ixo/Thriller%20Chart%20%20SILENCE%20OF%20THE%20LAMBS%20Blank.docx?dl=0

————————————————————————————-

For me, the big mystery about the entire story is what turned Hannibal into such a monster in the first place. Did he become a psychiatrist to find out why he had these unthinkable cravings? We know a fair amount about what drives Clarice and how she was drawn to become an FBI agent: her father’s career as a sheriff and her desire to save the innocent. What we know about Hannibal is that he has has an inhuman disdain – almost contempt – for others, but we don’t know how that happened within him. We also know he respects Clarice’s intellect and what she’s overcome.

The second big mystery is why Hannibal decided to help Clarice. In a way, he not only helps her in her career – her ambition – but he also helps her understand herself better. His observations and his Quid Pro Quo questioning of her is clearly disturbing to her. I don’t see it as a catharsis, but perhaps saving Catherine was that. He likes her honestly about herself, even though she lied to him about his transfer to another prison. We see how manipulative and deadly he can be by being able to get Miggs to kill himself. We also see how he appreciates being treated with courtesy and a certain respect for his skill and intellect the way Clarice does.

We see Clarice both at times of great strength and of great vulnerability. The flashbacks and her reactions to her memories help us see more clearly who she is. She knows when to turn on her southern charm, when to be direct, and when to take charge. She knows how to make people feel comfortable and when to challenge them. She’s not afraid to challenge Hannibal, for example, as when she tells him to point his high powered perception at himself. She is clearly ambitious. But is also keenly aware that she is smaller than most of the other FBI trainees and officers she encounters. She’s also incredibly smart and insightful herself. She respects Crawford’s authority but also feels she can speak truthfully to him and ask difficult questions. We learn at the end that Crawford knows about her father’s death and how that affected her life. She confronts physical danger courageously. She goes after Buffalo Bill knowing he has a gun but not knowing whether he intends to kill Catherine or kill her, or both. Either way, he has to be stopped. When she finds the body of another victim and when the lights go out, she doesn’t stop. She does her best to quiet Catherine by letting her know more help is on the way.

One interesting aspect of the story is that Clarice seems to have two mentors. Crawford sees her as an extremely perceptive prospective agent, in a way the kind of legacy he’d love to give the agency to which he has devoted his career. Hannibal appreciates her skill as a profiler but can tell she can learn more from him, which he offers through the Quid Pro Quo game he plays with her. It’s not entirely clear why he wants to help her save Catherine. Is this just another game to him. Is he helping her to see if she’ll defy Crawford and go after Buffalo Bill herself and effect Catherine’s rescue on her own? Does he care that he’s putting her in danger or does he somehow know she’s smart and skilled enough to survive?

Another terrific aspect of the story is how the urgency of saving Catherine crescendos toward the end. Hannibal plays it up making Clarice desperate to figure out the clues he’s providing, despondent when she thinks she’ll be too late, and then excited and determined when she thinks whatever she finds at the Lippman house will lead her to him and to Catherine in time.

It’s intriguing to see how one of Hannibal’s clues about how Buffalo Bill may have been rejected for a sex-change at one of the few clinics that did those, leads Crawford to the wrong location but does prove that his profile was accurate. But what’s equally intriguing is watching Clarice unwrap the other clue he gives her about people coveting the things they see every day and going back to the first victim.

There’s so much to learn from this film about developing fascinating characters, planting the seeds of a mystery and watching them grow scene after scene, creating tension, using the growing urgency of the situation to drive the story. I’m glad I took the three days to watch and fill out the chart. I can only hope that I can apply what I learned.

I downloaded the script and followed along. The shooting script is a little different, but Ted Tally did an amazing job on the script. It’s beautifully written. I suggest downloading a copy and keeping it for inspiration and reference.

[Sandra Gibson]

Sandra’s BI Stacking Suspense

What I learned in this assignment is that mystery, suspense, and intrigue can be built into every scene, not just the overall concept. I also learned that it is extremely important to keep the viewer guessing at what the realities are. Give enough detail to lead the viewer to a conclusion (even lead them to an incorrect conclusion), but always keep them guessing. Don’t reveal the answer to the mystery till the last possible moment.