MovieChat Forums > Nightmare Alley (2021) Discussion > What was Blanchett's motivation?

What was Blanchett's motivation?

posted 2 years ago by Alocirp (680)
23 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed the film for the most part, but was left with one nagging question: What motivated the psychiatrist, Dr. Ritter (Cate Blanchett) to go to such lengths just to destroy the life of some phony entertainer she had no prior relationship with?

During their final confrontation where it's revealed she's been setting Stanton up, the doctor specifically acknowledges that she never cared about the money gained through their collusion. Rather, it seemed she just had some extreme vendetta against him. She disliked like him for being an arrogant scam artist, calling him a "small, small man" who considered himself better than everyone else.

But was that enough to justify her actions? Not only ruining Stanton, but causing so much additional suffering in the process, including the deaths of several other people (some of them completely innocent).

I figured there had to be more to it; like perhaps the psychiatrist was someone from Stanton's past he had caused great harm, but no. As far as I could tell, she just considered him to be a pompous fraud. Which seems like a rather weak reason to set her utterly diabolical plot into motion.

Did I miss something?

[–] kwestmo (4150) 2 years ago

This is one of the problems with this movie. No character depth.

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

True... Especially considering the extended runtime, a few of the characters certainly could have been a bit more fleshed out. Many of them were interesting on a surface-level, but I would have enjoyed getting more into their heads--particularly in regards to Dr. Ritter.

[–] InvitationToLove (12) 2 years ago

Yes, Lilith's motivations are very unclear. She's suddenly presented as some criminal mastermind out to bring down Stanton, but there's no logic or reason supporting the reveal. Just pure shock value.

Have you see the original version of the film? Lilith has a much smaller role there, and is less involved in Stanton's downfall. It works a lot better, and is one of the main reasons I prefer the 1947 version.

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

I was honestly hoping there was some explanation that I was missing, but you could be right. Perhaps that big reveal was added simply for shock value.

I have not seen the 1947 film version, but plan on doing so. From your brief description of the doctor's role in the original, I am intrigued.

[–] kwestmo (4150) 2 years ago

The 1947 movie is better in almost every way.

[–] InvitationToLove (12) 2 years ago

Yeah, I would definitely recommend the original. I didn't think the remake was terrible, but the original is fantastic.

My ratings:
Original: 9/10
Remake: 6/10

[–] BeaSouth (2818) 2 years ago

Remember the scene where Ritter revealed the scar on her chest? She never completely explained its origins to Stan but she did subtly connect it to upsetting some powerful man in authority. The movie strongly implies this was done by the rich and powerful Ezra Grindle who was a patient of Ritter. He confessed to Stan that he hurt many women after the death of his lover, Dorrie, to alleviate the anger in his soul. Whoever the source, this was a profound scar that presumably left a deep psychological injury as well. Ritter came to hate men who thought themselves more powerful and able to exploit others with impunity. When she tried to expose Stan as such a man during his act, he humiliated her in front of the audience. This set her on the path of revenge and marshaling her own considerable talents to find his weaknesses and destroy him.

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

Thanks for the reply. I did consider the connection between Ritter and Grindle you suggested, and if it's true that he did in fact hurt her, I can understand her desire for revenge against him.

Having said that, the elaborate plot involving Stanton remains unnecessarily convoluted and nonsensical. You're suggesting Ritter hated Stanton right from the start, simply because he "humiliated her" in front of an audience (which, should be noted, is nothing more than what she was first trying to do to him). I can understand her bitterness over the incident, but to the point of destroying Stanton at any cost? Without any regard for the suffering and death of innocent bystanders along the way (including not only men, but women as well)? Unless the point was to illustrate Ritter as a complete sociopath, it doesn't add up.

I realize Ritter ultimately seems to get away with her crimes, but she was incredibly lucky to do so. So much could have gone wrong for her at every turn in her plot. A woman presented as brilliant as herself presumably would have been able to formulate a much simpler plan, with less risk for collateral damage. Though I suppose that would have made for a less interesting film.

Anyway, I appreciate your insights.

[–] BeaSouth (2818) 2 years ago

Can’t argue with your critiques. I guess I went into it thinking it was a 1940’s movie in the line of a Greek tragedy and perhaps the stories in those eras weren’t as sophisticated in patching up the weaknesses in the character development.

[–] imjustasking (139) 2 years ago

Good explanation.

[–] mikethemartian (6126) 2 years ago

I just assumed she was a sociopath like him and wanted to show she could out play him. The part I couldn’t understand is why a con man would leave his money with someone else. I guess it was because he assumed he could read people.

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

That's an interesting point about the money. If I recall, he requested to leave it with Ritter because he didn't want his girlfriend finding out about it. That seems like a stretch though; I believe either he had an ulterior motive, or it was a case of lazy writing.

Giving the writers the benefit of the doubt, what was his true motivation for leaving the money with Ritter? I remember the doctor initially declined any cut of the money, so perhaps Stanton thought that by leaving it with her, she would be encouraged to "think it over" and ultimately change her mind about her involvement in the scheme. This would be bad for his short term profits, of course, but thinking long-game, it's better to have a partner in crime equally motivated to keep the scam running.

[–] JepGambardella (467) 2 years ago

I thought the real target of her plan was the millionaire (who may have been the one who gave her the scar on her chest), not Stanton. He was just a tool that she used to get to Ezra Grindle - mentally torture him by bringing up memories of the woman he had loved decades earlier and for whose death he was responsible.

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

So then why'd she end up stealing all of Stanton's money and attempting to murder him after the fact? He didn't seem to have any idea what her true intentions were; no suspicions of being used as "just a tool". If she were only out for Grindle, she could have simply let Stanton walk away after her plot was finished.

Not to say Ritter wasn't also targeting Grindle in some way, but the "reveal" scene seemed to suggest a huge personal vendetta against Stanton as well.

[–] JepGambardella (467) 2 years ago

I suppose she wanted to get rid of him so that if there was ever any sort of investigation she could blame it all on the unstable dead guy.

I realise my explanation is not entirely satisfactory, since there is no way she could have foreseen how Stanton's scam on Grindle would have progressed. Still, I think it is more likely than the alternative (that her goal was to screw Stanton all along).

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

Yeah I suppose it would make some sense for her to get rid of Stanton just for a little "insurance" or so as to not leave any loose ends. But the dialogue in the scene suggested something very personal against Stanton.

I don't remember the exact lines, but she was tossing some pretty venomous insults towards Stanton before shooting him. I feel like if he was just a tool in her plot the scene would played out differently, with her attitude being more business-like, or maybe slightly apologetic toward Stanton. That wasn't the vibe I got at all.

[–] yvesyves (635) 2 years ago

For me; she is very wealthy and hanged out with the cream of the cream, was kind of depressed, and seemed like she had no particular joy in life so i think she took playing with him manipulating him as an exciting challenge; especially since she is a psychiatrist, prove to herself (and eventually at the end to him) that she is the best at manipulating.

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

I think you're correct to a degree—though I'm still unsure why her issue with Stanton seemed to be so personal.

[–] Memeito (357) 2 years ago

Because she's the classic femme fatale - a stock character of the noir movies, these kind of women just enjoy ensnaring and then ruining men...

[–] Alocirp (680) 2 years ago

Are you saying this as a critique of the film or a legitimate answer to the question?

[–] Memeito (357) 2 years ago

It's just how these noir movies are: there's always some scheming female in them, that seem to get pleasure just from destroying men.

[–] Zinger (2181) 2 years ago

This was my immediate thought. I genuinely thought I'd missed something, perhaps a relationship she had with the Grindle (he was possibly responsible for her scars but if that's the case then why is she so angry at Stan?) Or maybe she was producing her own scam. At one point, I even thought she might be in on it with Molly.

But apparently she dedicated vast portions of her existence to destroying him because he hurt her feelings or something.

[–] bobbydallas (8110) 2 years ago

i also assumed she was just hell-bent on revenge since Stanton embarrassed her during his act