What's new

*** Official "VANILLA SKY" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
Just checked at IMDb.com and Laura Fraser is The Future. She's not anywhere else in the film according to the cast list.

So what the hell is going on then?
 

Dean DeMass

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
1,826
I always went with the simple explanation of this film and that is the one that is spelled out for us in the film itself.

After he dies, he chose that one moment in the street to start his life in cryogenics. The person we hear at the end of the film is a nurse or someone like that at the cryogenics place. Great film BTW.

-Dean-
 

Ken_McAlinden

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,241
Location
Livonia, MI USA
Real Name
Kenneth McAlinden
Cameron Crowe talks about the misconception that Penelope Cruz's voice is the one at the end of the film on the DVD commentary track. He does not discourage speculation and alternate interpretations, but he does clarify that it is not her voice.

Regards,
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I've only seen VS once and that was six months ago, but I thought the move was explained completely at the end.

His life was real up to the car crash. At that point, nearly dead, he was placed in cryo and in a "lucid dream", with the starting point after the car crash. The dream veers from reality in that rather than being in nearly dead and in cryo, he survives the crash but is horribly disfigured. The dream story proceeds from there. It comes full circle at the end when it is revealed to him that it is a dream he's having. His escape sequence is to jump off the top of the building. This triggers the awakening process, where he will then leave the cryo sleep and enter the real world. The new challenge that awaits him is that he is still disfigured and nearly penniless (the cryo was expensive).

Maybe I missed it, but I thought the (somewhat heavy-handed) explanation at the end wrapped everything up and left no room for reinterpretation.

Personally, I thought the movie, while technically well done (acting, etc.), was not a good twisted-reality story. It didn't give us, the viewers, the clues to tell what might be real and what wasn't; nor did it give us any reason to care. I've seem this concept done much better in Star Trek TNG episodes.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
His life was real up to the car crash. At that point, nearly dead, he was placed in cryo and in a "lucid dream", with the starting point after the car crash.
That's a little off on what was explained in the film.
They show you that he survived the car crash but was disfigured. His death comes later via suicide at which point he has himself frozen (via his will and previous signed arrangement - he signs up and then goes home and eats pills). The process gives the option of GOING BACK in his memory line to some previous point at which to begin the lucid dream. So effectively he never remembers living anything past the point IN THE GUTTER. Up to that point everything really happened and what is depicted seems very possible (well, the cool holographic thing he owns aside and the actual freezing/dreaming technology :) )
David choses the point when he lost his dream girl while lying in the gutter. At that point in the film we stop seeing real memories and begin seeing the fake ones. Thus, when she wakes him on the street in the morning we have the "Vanilla Sky" rather than a natural one. Plus, it's the first moment that something amazingly right happens for him (her suddenly coming back to find him in the gutter out of nowhere). Shortly after that he sees one of the doctors again and the guy's attitude is 180 degrees altered from the previous scene. He is no longer professional in his approach and out of nowhere this miracle cure has arisen. The dream then starts to become a nightmare when he sees the Diaz start popping up.
Also, to help, note the first time you see tech support in the film. They don't just show up for problems, but would be there in some form to oversee the process in general, but they wouldn't exist before he ever went to the place. Thus he shows up during the new operation that "works" because this is part of the lucid dream and not a real memory.
David was very rich and very depressed about his face and losing his dream girl. Therefore the plot presented easily seems the most feasible in terms of character motivation.
But I admire Crowe for allowing the art to breathe and letting audiences have whatever they want to have from it (in terms of openly discussing and even promoting these other angles). That doesn't mean his goal was ambiguity, but he is willing to roll with those issues as they arise.
Also, on further viewings the film has become less of a "twist" film and more of a thoughtfully sad lost-romance film. It now seems more about understanding David's desperation and dispair more than just being freaky (which it never pushed fully toward anyway).
Crowe's weakness for somber romance, sometimes bittersweet romance, tells me that what HE saw in the original was these themes of lost love, more than "this dude is really just dreaming". Singles, Jerry McGuire, Almost Famous, and now Vanilla Sky ALL deal primarily with flawed romances as the central core.
Which is a big reason I respect Vanilla Sky even more now than I used to, as it is very true to this career long theme of his.
 

Paul Bartlet

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
88
I never thought to check the credits for the voice at the end, but I'm still 99% sure it's Cruz (I've seen it now 4-5 times). If it's not, the voice at the beginning and end "open your eyes" I'm sure is the same voice.

My view is it's all a dream. The opening in empty New York is a dream within a dream telling him "your all alone here".

The tech support, my Brother and I agree on this after much discussion, he is offering him "the blue pill" or "the blue pill" (reference- The Matrix), he doesn't get what he asked for "I want a real life". I believe tech support is there to reset the Lucid dream that has turned into a nightmare for David.
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
Either the entire movie is a dream, or it is as it was described at the end (he decided to go for the lucid dreaming thing). To tell the truth, until I read something from one of the producers or Cameron Crowe himself explaining what is supposed to have happened, I'm going to leave the film with two interpretations.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Well, the commentary says basically that Crowe's INTENT was not that the whole thing was a dream, but that some people had seen it that way and that it's cool if that's how they want to view it.

He points out a specific flub that he specifically states is a MISTAKE that some viewers took to be an intentional indicator of the whole film being a dream.

The licence tag sticker in the windshield of his car (not all states have these, so it might not jump out at you) has a non-existing date (Feb 31 if I recall correctly). It was just somebody's goof up, but people saw it as "evidence".

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade about other views, just saying that the film's CREATOR had one specific view and says as much in the commentary track. Again, he also acknowledges that the film then seemed to take on a life of its own with audiences seeing it other ways than he intended, and he thinks that's a neat effect too.
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
I remember reading that he didn't want there to be any dates in the film, so he actually got the NASDAQ ticker to stop running info about the election that was going on. The sticker thing was an accident.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,242
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
Again, he also acknowledges that the film then seemed to take on a life of its own with audiences seeing it other ways than he intended, and he thinks that's a neat effect too.
thats cool. it's always fun to hear people interpretations of things, especially if they are diferent opinions.
 

L. Anton Dencklau

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 23, 2000
Messages
250
Ten Things I Love about Vanilla Sky:
The perfect, perfect Cameron Crowe moment where REM "Sweetness Follows" is used as the camera pulls back and up from a heartbroken Tom Cruise running up an empty street at night, and then intercut with desaturated images of Cruz and Lee kissing.
The way Penelope Cruz goes from being a real girl: elusive, beautiful, flirting, wanting to be seduced and be told all the right things... to being a dream girl: completely honest, completely willing to overlook any faults, and explicitly telling you everything you have to do to make her fall in love with you.
Jason Lee confronting Tom Cruise outside of the police station with the righteous indignation and frustration of a person having to end a friendship. "I'm With Them..OOOHH." "You're in OJ land, Man." Then snow begins to fall.
The font/typeface in the Life Extension brochure on the page with the title "Can we resuscitate you? (or something like that )" and a picture of the cryotank against the whitespace on the page. I can explain exactly why I find it so satisfying, but it just seems ...right. It looks like what I would imagine a brochure like that would look like.
The tremendously dynamic performance of Cameron Diaz, representing every emotionally needy and clingy woman i've ever met, and taking it five steps further, adding a woman's attempt to "create" love by offering sex, and then throwing obsessive jealousy and self destructive behavior into the mix. ("four times means something!")
The way that a horrific car crash isn't exaggerated with explosions or slow motion, and then followed with a a couple of moments of silence.
The perfect opening for Tom Cruise's character: having him tweezing out a gray hair... setting up not only the initial narcissism of his character, but also playing off the audiences expectations of "Tom Cruise" Movie star, and creating a meta-interpretation of the film: the interplay between a life as a Famous/Upperclass/important (take your pick) person vs. an everyday person. (Set against Radiohead's "Everything in its Right Place"!! Note to CC, find a way to work "Fake Plastic Trees" into your next film)
The way that the film makes what are probably very average looking areas in New York look interesting. The New York in this film is a place I want to visit. Its not the home of central park muggers, random murders, and mafia violence. Its a place with a beautiful skyline, leaves falling in the park, and lights reflecting off of the puddles on rainy/snowy sidewalks.
The poignancy of having to say goodbye to someone you truly felt an expression of love for, without ever being able to realize that love. (Set to the achingly beautiful music of Sigur Ros)
The ambition. The filmmakers and actors willingness to expose themselves to the easy ridicule and derision from fans of the original film, in order to make something that in the end transcends the primary theme of "What is or isn't reality" into the more fascinating theme of "What is the worth; what is the meaning of your reality?" ("What's happiness to you, David?")
This movie has grown on me so much since I first saw it. We really have to wait another year for a SE DVD?
 

Dan Rudolph

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
4,042
SPOILERS ABOUND

I'm going to go against most people in this thread and give Vanilla Sky the edge, quality-wise. Granted, this is largely because it had roughly 30 times the budget ($2.4 million vs $58). This makes for a much bigger film. An empty Times Square has a much bigger impact than an empty downtown Madrid. Tom Cruise's reputation and screen persona work for him in coming off as a vain, mega-rich, charming, self-absorbed asshole. I cannot say the same of Eduardo Noriega in Open Your Eyes.

I also liked the expansion of Julia. In the US movie, David's lucid dream seems to go wrong largely because of guilt over what happens. He feels it was his fault. However, in the Spanish film, Nuria comes off as a psychotic stalker from the beginning and he seems to be punishing himself for general self-absorbtion. The former has much more impact, IMHO.

There's also the matter of the way in which we are given clues as to the end. I find it interesting some people complain it came out of nowhere, whereas as others complain that it was telegraphed far too much. The Spanish movie is much more overt in its clues. The guy on the LE commercials is the same persona used by tech support. They also mention a lot more specifics obout LE a bit earlier. In the US version, this is played much closer, but we are given clues through the art direction. I like this subtle approach much better.

I frankly liked the pop culture references. I think they served to emphasize the lack of meaning in his life (ie the father figure in hsi dream is based to Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird rather than his real father, who he barely knew) and also give much more credence to the living a dream scenario.

I think remaking a movie for a different target audience is a perfectly legit reason. This isn't Psycho or Planet of the Apes we're talking here. How many Americans would have seen Open Your Eyes if it weren't remade? More importantly, without the connectiosn to their culture, I don't think they would be able to appreciate it on the same level.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
I have seen Open Your Eyes and Jules and Jim since last posting on VS. First, I don't think Open Your Eyes is really any more vague than VS. I find the films to be thematically quite similar, simply seperated slightly by different styles.

As for Jules and Jim, I don't want to spoil J&J for anyone but
The way that a horrific car crash isn't exaggerated with explosions or slow motion, and then followed with a a couple of moments of silence.
Man do I agree with that. I found that crash to be one of the most realistic ever done in film, including the quite naturalistic reaction of the people in the background. That "stunned silence turning to running and yelling" has a perfect timing to it that adds power to the moment.
 

Holadem

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
8,967
The way that the film makes what are probably very average looking areas in New York look interesting. The New York in this film is a place I want to visit. Its not the home of central park muggers, random murders, and mafia violence.
[OT]
:rolleyes:Your vision of NYC is at least 10 - 15 years old.
[/OT]
--
Holadem
 

BrettisMckinney

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
281
Ok i've watched this movie twice...and to tell you the truth..i love it. I think its great! Very good performances, great cinematography...clever. Whats not to like? I'm just interested to see what you guys thought of it coz i remember it getting a HUGE bagging when it come out.

PS..im a Jason Lee fan..it helped a bit
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
The only real problem that I have is the fact that an explanation for everything is given at the end by the tech support guy. I've never seen the original (Hobre Los Ojos), but I couldn't stop thinking of how Lynch may have handled it...and there certainly wouldn't have been the same definitive resolution.
But, for the most part, I like the film as well. I saw it at the theater, and wasn't too impressed...but I've watched it a few more times on Showtime and it grows on me each time. I'm sure it got bagged by most of general public because it has a bit of a confusing plot. Most of my friends didn't get it at all...but of course, for me it wasn't confusing enough :D
Different strokes for different folks...
 

Josh Sieg

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
285
I love the movie. And I didn't find it confusing.

Isn't it safe to say that

when Tom wakes up at the end, the whole thing was a dream?
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
I think spoilers are probably ok for this thread.

Anyway, yah...it's a dream, but only from the point that he killed himself, IIRC.
 

Ricardo C

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
5,068
Real Name
Ricardo C
When David wakes up at the end, it doesn't mean the story has been a dream. Yes, he has been in a lucid dream, but by leaping to his "death", he is waking up from the lucid dream, 150 years into the future. Julie did kill herself and left him disfigured. He did lose Sophia after that night at the club. Everything up until that night at the club was part of his real life. Everything after, but until he meets with the tech support guy, is part of his lucid dream.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,744
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top