MovieChat Forums > Dream Lover (1994) Discussion > Not as I remembered (spoliers)

Not as I remembered (spoliers)

posted 16 years ago by DenzelFishburne
13 replies | jump to latest

I first saw this movie years ago, on cable the first year after it came out. I have always remembered it as one of my favorite movies and this movie is the reason I have followed James Spader movies since. What is strange though, is I always thought his wife was the evil one and a bad girl, which she was. After watching it again for the first time since then it seems strange. I almost thought that maybe she was a cold blooded woman, but she was trying to reform her ways with him. Maybe she was so good she set the whole scene up, but to wait two kids and almost seven years to make a big move, does not seem likely. It seemd like she was trying to be better (some old habits die hard) and wanted to be in love with a normal lif, becasue she said she never thought she could have anormal life. It was only after she got comfportable that he got suspicious and she just seemed to snap becasue she realized he would never fuly trust her so she got him. I seriously thought she would not have harmed him if he would have trusted her, which was, of course, impossible for him to do. Also, she had a contraceptive device that she used when she apparently was sleeping around. However, he questoned if the kids were his, and she obviuusly was taking steps to ensure, that even if she were having an affair, she would not become pregnanat by her lover. Her whole ugly side just exploded when he asked if the kids were his. The movie is so twisted and crazy it is absolutely great. -

[–] nitratestock35 16 years ago

Yup, you make some good points, but I guess you are overthinking the whole thing. The secret is always to think like a screnwriter and not get into the story if it was real - you can do it, but you will find all those loose plot strands left dangling...

[–] DenzelFishburne 16 years ago

I am not sure what it means to "think like a screenwriter". I fully enjoyed the story, the dialogue and the excellent acting. (Not to mention the absolutely beautiful femal lead). I was wondering if the screenwriter meant for us to feel sorry for James Spaders character or to realize he was actually twisted and evil too. Or it could mean, that in the right situations anyone of us could snap as .............wait, I AM overthinking again..............

[–] nitratestock35 16 years ago

What I meant is: all too often we analyze (myself included) a movie's story as if it was real life. A screenwriter needs to "solve problems" like: I want to show that she is evil, playing her husband. So let's put in those phone call scenes, where it looks like she is talking to her lover - right in front of him, then she is obviously lying about it with an evil smile. The explanations come later, some are shoehorned in (she had it all planed for years). We all know that it is impossible to plan for years and it all works out perfectly, no matter how good you are, it never does. In a Hitchcockian universe this IS possible though. Check how often the word "dream" is mentioned (it's even in the title) - then there are those nightmarish carnival mini episodes (perhaps a David Lynch hommage?). Yes she did plan it all - one of her last words are "you have know idea who I am or what I do". That should explain it all. Her exact backstory is of no interest (that gas station hunk and her parents are too much cliche for a movie with otgherwise rather convincing characters - so they might be "actors" hired by her as well.

It's the nightmarish scenario of her functioning like the evil clockwork mechanics as found on a carnival and James Spader trying not to lose his marbles, which the screenwriters went for. How it unfolded and how it was planned is left unmentioned and just hinted at (by her, but isn't every word she ever sais a lie?). We see the entire movie from James Spader's point of view, there is no look "behind the scenes" so we never know what is coming (that is of course the opposite of what Hitchcock would have done, he would let the audience know a thing or two before they happen - or not).
That's my take: this movie seems to have more layers beneath the story than it actually has. It is to a huge part nothing more than an exercise in style.
That is my humble opinion of course.

[–] DenzelFishburne 16 years ago

Thank You for the humble opinion. I mirrored these sentiments almost exactly (however with much less depth) the first time I saw it. I still think she was evil. I still think he pushed her after she might have tried to change. I think the screenwriter also considers his audience and maybe would have wanted to leave the conclusion (slightly) ambiguous a la "The Prestige"

[–] artistathome 13 years ago

There is one of two ways to look at this and explain it.
1. She wanted a rich husband, and wanted to FORGET her family and sleep around if she wanted but also to have a husband who loved her and her kids. Nothing more than that. When he got suspicious, her true warped personality came out and she got rid of him. She thought.

OR:
2. It was her plan all along to snag him, have kids, make him trust her but do things to make him suspicious. So that he would start acting crazy. The nanny was a witness. She got him committed and made plans to get everything.

Either way works for me.

[–] CharlotteXavier 12 years ago

...I guess you are overthinking the whole thing. The secret is always to think like a screnwriter and not get into the story if it was real - you can do it, but you will find all those loose plot strands left dangling...

The best art imo is art that makes people think. I tell people who say: "You are over thinking": "You are under thinking." LOL LOL LOL

And excellent writing does not leave messy plot strands dangling, crappy writing does.

That's not to say I found this movie crappy, not one bit. I was all set to watch my show and I couldn't switch the channel. I thought the movie was great and the unanswered questions just made it better for me.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lamont-hard 9 years ago

Especially after she said she might leave the kids, I don't think she wanted them. Yes she set the whole thing up, she made that clear.

[–] bpollen 11 years ago

I think you're trying to see her in a better light than she was. She was a sociopath. She was incapable of love or caring for another human being. That gene does not exist within her. Remember when she said she might keep the kids, or not...didn't matter to her.

Why she waited so long seems simple to me. She waited for him to become rich. She knew he was on his way early on, but early on, he didn't have enough to support her for the rest of her life, at least in the style she wanted to become accustomed to. But as he got the Japan job, and then others, he was on his way. As for why she had the children, I'm not sure. Could be an accident. If she was using a diaphragm, which is what she seemed to be using, they're not as reliable as pills. It's also easier to get all the money in family court when you have kids, and much easier to get sympathy from others when you have kids. One kid would've sufficed, though. She never explains why she had the kids, even to say they were accidents, that I heard.

It could also have dragged out because it took so long for him to catch on. It was part of the plan that he become suspicious and then find out about the trysts in the hotel. That would've set off his emotional turmoil, which was THE big part of the plan. That's the one problem I have with the movie...that a man that smart would've been so stupid. Once he found out she was lying about her past and identity, he stayed with her. Then for him to take so long to catch on to her infidelity, is a little unbelievable.

But the time frame was part of the plan. HE had to find out on his own. HE had to be driven into absolute emotional turmoil, for her plan to work. HE had to be driven to do some stupid things, for her claim of him being insane to be believable.

[–] lamont-hard 9 years ago

After she says she might dump the kids I knew she planned everything and cared for no one. She even says she planned everything. She could care less about her kids.

[–] hhawkins-74227 9 years ago

I thought too that she really stuck with the scam for a long time -- long enough for two children apparently. If she spent so much time stalking him and learning his habits, she could have spent that time finding a guy who was *already* wealthy and wouldn't require a five-year time investment. But then, we only have her word that she stalked him for so long and learned all about what he liked. And did her affair with Larry start even before she met Spader (can't remember the guy's name)? Again, we just have her word.

It was odd that no one in her hometown would admit to knowing her. Until he happened to get thirsty for a Coke. So if Buddy and her parents *were* actors (and that seems possible) it was almost wasted money, since Spader might not have bumped into "Buddy."

It's almost infuriating that we didn't get the full story on the details of the scam, and on her plans. It didn't sound like moving to New Zealand with Larry was what she was planning to do. But we'll just never know.

[–] paramitch 8 years ago

I disagree. Lena stays to have kids (and admits this fact) because they help to tie her husband to her and make him more helpless. She does not ever show any signs of having even remote affection for the kids (although he does), and later admits to him that she may abandon them after destroying him just for the fun of it.

She is never, I feel, remotely a person who is ever out for anyone but herself. She's a great character (and ridiculously gorgeous), but I think the film goes out of its way to show that she is irrevocably broken, frozen and cold. She has framed everyone in her life as monsters in order to get what she wants -- her parents, her husband, and even used her kids as well.

The film's ending is one of the very few times I have ever cheered for an ending even though I knew it was truly twisted. But Lena is one of those people who could not be stopped any other way.

But I still love the fact that despite everything I just described, her husband cannot let go, still loves her, and is still able to admit that to his children. He's been broken by her too, irrevocably.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

[–] jriley555 (8126) 6 years ago

Great thread. Had seen this haunting film many years ago, and just re-watched it. After viewing the insights here, and agreeing with many that there are aspects of the story which cannot be accounted for definitively, in some way that is appropriate, since the protagonist can't make sense of her either, during or after.

Of course he resolves in the end to do away with her to protect himself & his kids, but he'll never understand her fully, her motives, what the actual extent or particulars of premeditation were, how she felt about him, the children, in full. he can't take her word as reliable, after all. neither can we.

I've read this sort of confusion/irresolution is a common reaction to people in relationships with psychopaths. They are left often questioning themselves, how they got involved, what attracted them, what the truth of anything about their shared experience actually was.