MovieChat Forums > In the Mouth of Madness (1995) Discussion > Anyone think Stiles was deliberately act...

Anyone think Stiles was deliberately acted poorly?


I have been thinking about this, I believe Stiles was deliberately acted poorly and shallow. Having read a lot of horror books such as those Sutter Cane is writing, a female love interest to the main character is always under developed and shallow. Notice that John never delves into her personal life despite the lengthy drive?

I think this is supposed to provide a sense of detachment, that all you are watching is the horror story Sutter Cane wrote, as John realizes in the end at the movie.

reply

I disagree. The lack of delving into her personal life has nothing to do with a bad performance. I don't think she is terrible, but she is easily the weakest link in the movie. Adding a personal back story for her would in no way improve her performance nor would it really add anything to the story. Her character was there to serve a purpose, the one who knows all about Sutter Cane's books, the one to give our main character someone to voice his viewpoint to and/or to challenge his claims, and who eventually becomes a victim. You don't need any back story for her.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

YES.

I believe that the first 2/3 of the film were specifically written and shot to come across the same way that Trent sees Cane's writing: Pedestrian, run-of-the-mill horror fiction riddled with cliches. Bad prosthetic makeup, snarling monsters, creepy old ladies... All of it designed to BE that unimpressive horror claptrap.

Building this is the only way I can think of for the final act's big reversal to really work.

I think that, in keeping with this build-up to the eventual reversal, Julie Carmen's performance was intentionally guided to evoke the thought of the "unnecessary female character for sexual tension" archetype of the horror genre.

Notice how, in the final act, her performance, while not exactly diagetic to the narrative, is MUCH MUCH more intense.

This, to me, is one of the most brilliant takes on the horror genre to have ever been produced, and it gets far less attention than it should.

reply

Was totally on board with what you'd written until this: "Notice how, in the final act, her performance, while not exactly diagetic to the narrative, is MUCH MUCH more intense" That sentence makes no sense. Diagetic is a term that relates to sound, sound that is coming from the something on or off screen in a movie relating to the story. Theme music typically being an example of non-diagetic sound. I know this because I just learned this word last week. ;)
I'm also not entirely convinced that the parts in Hobb's Town was supposed to play out like a bad horror novel. Being the early 90's the effects/gore didn't look particularly bad to me. Although I do agree that Julie Carmen does not seem like a bad actress, so I think I'm on board with the interpretation that she was purposefully subdued early on because that's how Sutter Cane had written her. Unfortunately this would mean that Sam Neill's character was being manipulated by the writing of Sutter Cane as well, but we don't really see any evidence of that, or do we? I could be convinced, but I didn't see it.

reply

Actually, diegesis is a word that refers to the fictional world created by its author; everything that's happening in-story. The expressions "diegetic sound" and "non-diegetic sound" derive from the broader meaning of the word "diegesis", but are in no way, shape or form the only way to use them.

reply

No, I just think that Julie Carmen is an utterly incompetent actress. The problem is not that the character was shallow and underdeveloped. The problem was that her facial expression and tone of voice was completely inappropriate for the situation and emotions being conveyed. It's hard not to laugh out loud when watching her "I'm losing me!" scene on the bed, or her puzzled tone when asking "So are you saying that Cane went someplace fictional?" (not taunting, but fascinated!)

reply

Yes. There is very strong evidence to support the idea that the first two acts basically represent Trent's perception of Sutter Cane's writing, which has a number of horror genre conventions, right down to stilted dialogue, poor acting, "people turning into monsters," etc. This film is much more self-aware than people seem to give it credit for. A shame, because this is one of the best movies in the entire horror genre.

reply

[deleted]

She wasn't great, but I don't feel she acted poorly on purpose.

Can't stop the signal.

reply

The entire performance seems a little "off", and I think it was directed to be that way. She is intended to be a construct and not a real person.

reply

I haven't seen the actor in enough other projects to comment on her skill, but what you propose is certainly feasible.

Who loves ya, baby?

reply

It's okay that her character development flopped - she was written out of the story in the end anyway.

~
My list of 1,000+ weird wild movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls053942167/

reply