MovieChat Forums > The Dying Gaul Discussion > Movie Within a Movie

Movie Within a Movie

posted 18 years ago by dcawthon
12 replies | jump to latest

I'm one of those who have found The Dying Gaul both compelling and confusing. Several comments I've read refer to the change of direction the movie takes as it moves towards its climax. It seems to me that there is a hidden shift going on in the film. "The Dying Gaul" BEGINS as a movie about a screenplay which must be re-written in order to find a paying audience (i.e, change the gay couple to a straight one). I think that it then MORPHS into the movie that is emerging in its re-written form--and that it is Elaine who is doing the revision--not Robert. Think about it. The transformation is taking place in front of our very eyes, but we don't see it. Any takers?

[–] bf17 18 years ago

wow, thats a great point......im gonna have to think about it

[–] onajudnam_odnalro 18 years ago

i was thinking the exact same thing. i've had mixed feelings about this movie but i definitely think it's worth a second viewing.

[–] machevy 18 years ago

It was intriguing and interesting - I will give it that. And not a little bit confusing but I agree that it may just need a second viewing.

Also, if she's actually the one doing the revisions (an excellent theory, by the way), that may help explain my question which is where did she get all her information to convince Saarsgaard that she was his dead lover? (sorry, I'm blanking on character names here).

[–] goner-1 18 years ago

I agree: that's a compellling reading. And I definitely think this movie warrants a second watching. It's not like it's a dream, but the first scenes in the movie exec's office are so wish-fulfillment, even down to the way Campbell Scott plays the smiles and good news, and how those shots are composed. Similarly Robert's apt and car are all green and we start with him waking in bed. I also wonder if it's significant that all the computers, including Elaine's laptop - and she's loaded of course - seem *very* old.

[–] WVHokie 18 years ago

The computers are old(er) because the movie is set in 1995.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] angelofvic 12 years ago

Robert was doing his own rewrites to the script. We already see him very early on changing the character's name from Maurice to Maggie.
.

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

Well okay. Here it goes in no particular order. The only way to change the gay couple to a straight one is to make Robert bisexual. Like Jeffrey who is bisexual.

The purpose was to make the movie easy to sell, I doubt that bisexual characters would have played better than gay characters. In fact it would probably make the movie even harder to sell.

Bisexual men are one thing, but I wonder what the term is for women.

"Bisexual women"?

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] conedust 15 years ago

This idea makes no sense and reduces an otherwise sensible, satisfying film to incoherent rubbish.

It's a movie that uses a screenplay as its central device. The screenplay, in turn, uses the central image of "The Dying Gaul" to make a statement about empathy. All of the characters (to one degree or another, in one way or another) feign empathy and pretend understanding. In the end, all are revealed as selfish, self-deluding monsters, and none seem capable of learning anything from the various "dying gauls" that surround them: Maurice's death, the fragility of marriage, the vulnerability and trust of Children, Buddhism, etc.

Insisting that this is, instead, some Adaptation-style meta-narrative about the shifting borderland between the real and the created is just harebrained. The film's conclusion does justify Jeffery's earlier claim that The Dying Gaul (Robert's screenplay) is "a weepie" and will be a hard sell, but I saw this as a subtle joke -- not as some heavy-handed "new reality" twist.

[–] angelofvic 12 years ago

Several comments I've read refer to the change of direction the movie takes as it moves towards its climax.

What comments? What change of direction? There is no change of direction. It's all telegraphed from the very early point when we see the monkshood.

.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

It seems to me that there is a hidden shift going on in the film. "The Dying Gaul" BEGINS as a movie about a screenplay which must be re-written in order to find a paying audience (i.e, change the gay couple to a straight one). I think that it then MORPHS into the movie that is emerging in its re-written form--and that it is Elaine who is doing the revision--not Robert. Think about it. The transformation is taking place in front of our very eyes, but we don't see it. Any takers?

You are trying to find twists where there wasn't any. There is symbolism in the movie, in lots of places but this makes no sense and in fact pretty much ruins the symbolism of the movie.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco