MovieChat Forums > In Dreams (1999) Discussion > why the movie works (spoilers)

why the movie works (spoilers)

posted 19 years ago by caraten
21 replies | jump to latest

My contribution to allmovie.com:

I think critics have been unnecessarily harsh on Neil Jordan's In Dreams.

If you understand and accept the artistic basis of the movie, it's a perfectly fitted and beautiful story of a woman who goes mad after losing her daugther. There is no killer at large, it's Claire's aggressive and murderous alter ego who takes over at the end and her motherly ego who drowns under the bridge. That's why Claire's hair gradually shortens during the movie. She had a special wig assistant, cf. the credits. She kills her husband.

So, what Jordan does in In Dreams is showing the story solely from Claire's POV. And since Claire mixes dream and reality, so does the movie. And whatever Dr. Silverman says is whatever Claire's imagination would like him to say. USA wasn't prepared for this movie says Jordan at

http://www.filmireland.net/archive/lookjordan.htm.

A little too pessimistic, but In Dreams is certainly challenging, new and beautiful. Jordan does a modern day version of what Robert Wise did in The Haunting and which was done in Henry James-movies such as The Innocents, mixing dream and reality as seen from the main character's POV - the alledgedly most difficult movie to make, and Jordan didn't succeed unconditionally based on the critics' views.

The reason In Dreams works as a movie is that the above real story is contrasted thoughout to our instincts as audience to sympathize with Claire wanting her to be right and to be a victim. But she is the killer. That's the movie's most original contribution.

I think, though, that in the year 2046 this movie will be widely recognized together with Mulholland Drive as a lasting masterpiece because of its contrete-hidden-in-the-abstract-ness.

I have a few further comments.

"David Lynch-inspired technique"

Your are right and wrong. Jordan uses Elizabeth Fraser for the song Dream Baby

http://www.mcilwaine12.utvinternet.co.uk/ctuk/lyrics/elliotgoldenthal.htm.

She sang Lynch's favourite Song To Sirene in Lost Highway, of course. And Orbison is pure Lynch rip-off from Blue Velvet, of course. Not very original, but still right on the theme.

Jordan made In Dreams a few years before Lynch made HIS tale of the fall of the too emotional, loving and idealistic female-turned-murder, Mulholland Drive. And at that, Jordan is a little more daring than Lynch, mixing dream and reality deep into the movie itself, where Lynch drew the line much sharper for us.

[–] 666Night999 19 years ago

I wish the book would support this theory, because the movie at face value appears to be pretty standard and inconsistent. I don't think we sympathize with the Bening character. The beginning was intense and involving, but then soon got muddled and inconsistent.

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] caraten 19 years ago

The book is never a source in itself, when you are dealing with auteurs like Jordan, Hitchcock, Lynch for that matter. They use the book as initial inspiration, nothing else.

I sympathized with her.

The story was totally consistent, like a mathematic pattern. Like Corman described The Tomb Of Ligeia, shifting between characters. He had a plan and stuck to it, but could easily understand why the ordinary audience couldn't.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nuckingfutz 18 years ago

Quote:There is no killer at large, it's Claire's aggressive and murderous alter ego who takes over at the end and her motherly ego who drowns under the bridge. That's why Claire's hair gradually shortens during the movie. She had a special wig assistant, cf. the credits. She kills her husband.

How do you explain the fact that her HUSBAND is the one that signed her into the mental institution, from which she didn't escape until AFTER he'd been killed????

I used to have a handle on life... but it broke.

[–] gorgsharpy 18 years ago

Good point. But the whole movie is as seen from Claire's POV, so you cannot really try to logically explain or use as argument its chronology. As to the point you raise, she may well have been admitted to the institution several times. It's not the movie's intention to give us accurate explanations of factual events or the chronology. It's very much a movie of the subconscious.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FuturePrimitive666 18 years ago

You hit the nail on the head, Caraten! Right on! It doesn't matter what the Press people who designed the DVD Box for this think or what information they were supplied with. Free Thought prevails. This is a thinking man's movie and if YOU can reason anything at all then the Answers are there to be had and not so hidden like some would believe. It kind of reminds me of Christianity and Religion, in general, but I won't go there. lol Add me to your Review List, Caraten, please. FuturePrimitive.

[–] Iwearclothes 18 years ago

So... the movie is shown through a character's point of view that's not meant to be trusted. So, a movie exists in which we're expected to ignore all of the events that happen on screen in favor of our own logic. Okay. "Spider" did it better. The psychological deviation was more interesting in "Spider". That film made sense once one cracked its "Thinking Man's Movie" code, where "In Dreams" failed to do so. But, beyond making such comparisons, "In Dreams" isn't really very interesting in itself. If this summation of things is to be believed, then let's just look at it from the perspective of any other character (a sane one, at that). Simply, if Claire and Vivian are one and the same, who was with the child? You'll argue that the child was never there and that the events at the 'orchard' were more make-believe. However, to say that something so pervasive throughout the movie was entirely false - that she made up the central plot of the movie - is just the same as watching Jurassic Park and saying that those events were not literal events but, rather, a series of things imagined by a cat that's been stuck in a basket for two weeks. There's no point in offering a false plot, denying its truth, and not offering anything in the way of an honest perspective. There certainly isn't anything emotionally interesting or engaging about this film, as psychosis has no depth. The imagery, perspective, and general warp of the movie are just a series of vague references to its skeletal plot. Enjoying a movie for the imagery is literally just enjoying moving pictures. I love napkins.

[–] gorgsharpy 18 years ago

"Simply, if Claire and Vivian are one and the same, who was with the child?"

Claire, of course. They are not one. They are Claire and her split personality.

[–] lauraxhaferraj 18 years ago

I only watched this film today and never previously heard of it but I was intrigued by it. Your thoughts on the film are very provoking and I must say I ahd never thought of it that way but what you say makes sense.
I actually liked the film but wasn't keen on the ending but what you say has got me thinking about it again and I think maybe I was wrong to judge it the way I did.
www.cyberpals.co.uk

[–] marbleann 10 years ago

Late late But I just saw this movie. The man was a serial killer he had been killing people way before he ran into Clare. I believe he was searching for a person who had his ability and he hit the jackpot when he killed Clare's daughter. He knew it was someone close because she had picked up a crime he did earlier. Remember in the beginning of the movie someone else had been killed. So it had nothing to do with her turning into a split personality all of sudden. She had a hubby and kid don't you think any of them would of picked that up? The Director would never do anything so ridiculous. I believe it was all about Vivian wanting his one family and him having it with a person who was like him. He had to get rid of everybody in her family so she would have no one. But he miscalculated. Unlike him her childhood was not like his. So she was not a kindred spirit. So everything fell apart. One last point Vivian is a pretty popular male name in England and the West Indies. My grandparents caretaker name is Vivian. And Clare is another male/female name. Remember Clare in the book/movie Lolita.

[–] TheMaLkAvIaN 18 years ago

wow ...this movie really blew

[–] montecristo42 18 years ago

Though I don't necessarily believe in, or intend to support, the split personality theory (it is interesting I'll admit), I think the fact that Claire and Vivian seem to be in each others' heads could suggest they were one and the same individual.

You could view their "in each others' heads"-ness in one of two ways:

1) supernatural explanation
or
2) split personalities of the same individual.

Given that the movie, I'm starting to think, was more of a psychological exploration than a supernatural one, the second option appears to make more and more sense to me.

Unfortunately, there exists several non-Claire/non-Vivian scenes that suggest an objective reality, which would undermine the split personality theory that the movie is being told from someone's warped psyche (the Total Recall Paradox, as I like to refer to it).

Interesting theory, though. I'm not sure if Jordan succeeded in doing it.

BTW, why are Jordan's works (with the exception of Michael Collins) so involved with sexual identity?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gorgsharpy 16 years ago

her daughter drowned in an accident

come on, lynch does show the killing in lost highway, mulholland drive or inland empire either, we are left to guess

[–] Burning_Dawn 16 years ago

Although the idea and concept of a split personality would make the movie far more interesting, not to say that it wasn't to begin with, I can not fully go with that theory. Yes In Dreams leaves so much open for the mind to think about, leaving many questions unanswered and leaving us to ponder and try to fill in the blanks ourself (an aspect of the movie I love), but there are too many clues that points that the two are two separate people rather than one with a split personality.

True with such a childhood that Vivian had he could have developed a split personality. But in most cases the two personality are rarely aware of one another unless told. But then if that is the case I would say that they took a few artistic liberties.

But many questions come up that seems to debunk the murderous split personality. How was she able to take her own daughter away and kill her while around so many people? How was she able to dispose of the body in the lake if she was under sedation? How could she have carved the rhyme into the hospital wall if it was covered by some rather old and peeling wallpaper? Or kidnap Ruby and brainwash her into believing that she was taking care of her while the rest of her family was dead? Or the fact that Ruby acknowledged both separately and even went to explain how Vivian dresses up as his mother (maybe he alone had a split personality via a Psycho-esque means and Clair was indeed a separate person).

If that was in her head then why would there be records of Vivian in the hospital, surely that could not have been in her head. But then if Claire and Vivian were one and the same then wouldn't that make Claire male? The fact that Claire had a husband and daughter proves that theory impossible.

Ultimately we can not forget that this was inspired (rather loosely) by the novel Doll Eyes. If anything can be connected between the two is that there is a serial killer and that the heroine has a connection to him, a somewhat psychic connection that she has no control over. To have a mental link with a madman perhaps the madness began to slip over through the bridge between them.

I know that this thinking seems too linear and taking this for a rather face value. If this was indeed a case of split personality I fear that, even with it being so open for interruption, there are a few holes that makes it hard to believe if you continuously analyze it.

All the same I still liked this movie for the mental twists on what was real, a dream, and memory along with the visual effects. And the little ride on how a sane person can be driven to a state of madness when none believes you like Cassandra in Troy.

~~Funny, I get the impression you think I'm giving you a choice.

[–] gorgsharpy 16 years ago

"then wouldn't that make Claire male?"

Notice how Jordan lets Bennings hair get shorter and shorter throughout the movie for her to assimilate to a man/Vivian. Making the killer a male is Claire's mental way of unidentifying herself with killing people.

Her daughter just died in an accident. The movie is about her reaction to her death. That's why she joins the daughter under water in the end.

Think Dali/surreal and you get all the other answers. If not, try vodka.

[–] OpaqueOne 13 years ago

gorgsharpy,

I agree with your split personality theory and the movie's main thrust as being about Claire's reaction to her daughter's drowning. What ruined a movie with massive potential for me were the fairy tale parts and the silliness of Downey Jr's role (her alter). It seemed almost like a spoof with Downey Jr. calling "Claiiirre?" I accept the whole psychosis and split persona theory, but some things could have been handled better. The underwater scene that reunited mother and daughter was a great shot and would have been the perfect place to end the movie, in my opinion, instead of the ridiculous one we got.

[–] gorgsharpy 12 years ago

That's a different story. I respect people like you who dislike what they understand. I must say that the scene in the cider house is about as good as dark humour should be to me.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nikfyst 10 years ago

i love how a discussion can continue on IMDb NINE full years after it was initiated. :D