Happy Accidents

Question

(Argg... My e-mail client destroyed my original post, so here it is again):
On the recommendation of Joe & others I finally picked this up and watched it last night. Nice story. Thanks for the push. I'm appointing Marisa Tomei my muse-for-life. I just have to figure out where to send the certificate.
(spoiler alert)
The story has great pace and every time you think it's going to falter it's saved by Vincent D'Onofrio's character pulling something weird and unexpected out of the hat. It's great that they keep the truth about Sam (three letter names only...) a mystery until the end, but then they RUIN IT with that short scene with the therapist revealing her role. Why do that when the photograph said all that needed to be said?
And then I didn't get the whole Chrystie Delancey thing. Sam says she was an old woman who first helped him assimilate and if that was true, then they could have made the therapist be* Chrystie Delancey but it turns out that it's just a street corner. So, what was it? Was it a street corner *and an old woman? The constant references earlier certainly made you realize that this was the fateful place where an accident was going to happen, but was the story about the old woman just something Sam made up to cover the fact that he'd been writing the words obsessively over Ruby's picture (I guess, having said that, I realize that must be the explanation, but it was a nagging question at a point in the movie where you didn't want any nagging questions, you just wanted to be inside the story).

Anyway, great film. Nice to see something that's not structured like every other romantic comedy under the sun... Or maybe the structure isn't really that different, but it certainly hits some non-standard beats.

And watching Marisa Tomei is its own reward.
Alan Brooks

A with an Underwood
stnediccA yppaH
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1](Argg... My e-mail client destroyed my original post, so here it is again): On the recommendation of Joe & others ... for the push. I'm appointing Marisa Tomei my muse-for-life. I just have to figure out where to send the certificate.[/nq]
I like to think that Marisa won her Oscar in "Happy Accidents," despite being awarded it a couple of years earlier.

There are so many Ruby moments in this film, the inner contradictions within her that, the more I see the film, I realize few actors could pull off without it being a mishmash. Credit, too, to the direction and editing and script for handling the
flashback-within-a-flashback-within-a-flashback structure and keeping all the emotions and the inner time-progression perfect.
[nq:1](spoiler alert)[/nq]
(still spoiling)
[nq:1]The story has great pace and every time you think it's going to falter it's saved by Vincent D'Onofrio's character ... scene with the therapist revealing her role. Why do that when the photograph said all that needed to be said?[/nq]
I suspect three reasons.
First of all, Holland Taylor's scenes are just brilliant. I'm such a fan of all her work. Watching Holland Taylor act is like watching Picasso paint.
Second: Holland Taylor is Anderson's aunt.
But mostly, Taylor's character knows everything Sam knows and he's broken the rules. Her attitude toward Sam is an acceptance of "Cheesemans's Theory" (or a rejection, I dunno, of one of those delightful discoveries from the future), that it ramps up the tension as the taxi approaches Chrystie Delancey.
[nq:1]And then I didn't get the whole Chrystie Delancey thing. Sam says she was an old woman who first helped ... a point in the movie where you didn't want any nagging questions, you just wanted to be inside the story).[/nq]
Yup. Sam's a sweet guy, but not a very good liar. He tries and tries and tries to explain stuff truthfully but knows the truth will make him sound like a loon. And every time he speaks the truth, he *is* judged to be a loon.
When the taxi first approaches Chrystie Delancey, how many times has Sam seen that? D'Onofrio's reaction not more than a handful of frames seems to reveal that he's seen this all before and is doomed to go back to the Iowa coast and 2470 and do this all again. Until...

(Hey, you've had two spoilers warnings! At this point it's not my fault!)
[nq:1]Anyway, great film. Nice to see something that's not structured like every other romantic comedy under the sun... Or maybe the structure isn't really that different, but it certainly hits some non-standard beats.[/nq]
Talk about what you mean, here, Alan. The "non-standard beats."

I've loved this film's mash-up of romantic comedy and sci-fi, but I'm such a fan I lack objectivity.
What are those certain non-standard beats, in your opinion?

Just curious.
[nq:1]And watching Marisa Tomei is its own reward. Alan Brooks A with an Underwood stnediccA yppaH[/nq]
Joe Myers
"Now I don't owe you money. ****."

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1](still spoiling)[/nq]
...so don't read this if you haven't seen the film; it will only ruin the movie and it won't make any sense anyway...
[nq:1]But mostly, Taylor's character knows everything Sam knows and he's broken the rules. Her attitude toward Sam is an acceptance ... one of those delightful discoveries from the future), that it ramps up the tension as the taxi approaches Chrystie Delancey.[/nq]
Er... Maybe. Guess I'll watch it again soon (this could become part of a weekly Marisa Tomei Fest), but til then I'm going with the theory that the therapist "reveal" was about giving Anderson's aunt an extra scene.
[nq:2]Anyway, great film. Nice to see something that's not structured ... really that different, but it certainly hits some non-standard beats.[/nq]
[nq:1]Talk about what you mean, here, Alan. The "non-standard beats." I've loved this film's mash-up of romantic comedy and sci-fi, but I'm such a fan I lack objectivity. What are those certain non-standard beats, in your opinion? Just curious.[/nq]
Well, instead of the classic boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-gets-girl (you know; the ol' BMGBLGBGG), in this film once the boy meets the girl he basically keeps her, though very tenuously, for the entire story. I think all the story beats are different based on that.
And then there's the Ticking Bomb: There *is* a ticking bomb in this story, but amazingly, it's not revealed until the beginning of the third act, when Sam tells Ruby that she's going to die on Friday. Now, is that an oddly placed story beat or what? In an ordinary story, the crisis driving the tale would be handed to you near the beginning so you can sweat it out along with the characters. In this story it's revealed very late, and in a way where it could be nothing more than another symptom in Sam's increasing break with reality.
Without that early reveal, you can see how Anderson struggled to keep tension in the tale by the way it's structured, with another horrific "reveal" in a flashback in the first scene (Sam is a murderer) which doesn't actually happen until the end of the second act, where the reveal is exposed as a trick.
Of course the fractured timeline feeds into the concept of bending time anyway, so it's a good fit for this film. But it's also done so as to provide tension points around where the audience needs them, to keep our interest piqued.
If you think about it, the antagonist of this story is sort of "the truth" which, if told straight out, will cause no end of bad things Sam will get locked up in a psychiatric ward, Ruby will probably die, Sam will have broken all sorts of time-travel laws (though how a government that doesn't yet exist is supposed to punish him for these lapses is not clear).

Both Ruby and Sam struggle with the truth because they both want a future with each other and Ruby knows that Sam has a terrible problem with revealing the truth while Sam knows that Ruby will have a terrible problem if the truth is revealed. It's more than a macguffin but less than an antagonist; it's an odd trope to dance your characters around, and more credit to Anderson for pulling it off so well (IMHO).

Alan Brooks

A with an Underwood
Ron Jeremy in
"Boy Meats Girl"
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html

Usenet · Answer

(spoiler alert)
[nq:1]What are those certain non-standard beats, in your opinion? Just curious.[/nq]
For me, one of the non-standard choices was where the flashback/narration to shrink stops it's not at a typical point (early in first act), though maybe I just tune out most voice over and am wrong about this?
Also, for the tone of the film, one might expect a "can't change time but can learn a lesson" ending instead of the one we got, which I much preferred

Will have to watch again and chart out the other stuff.

I have to say, I thought the sci-fi stuff was not necessarily the bravest or riskiest choice the writer could have made it seemed to me at points to detract from the far more interesting dance of intimacy that Ruby & Sam were doing. But having made that choice, Anderson wrote the **** out of it, IMHO.
D'Onofrio is a heartbreaker. The Tomei character to me seemed SLIGHTLY uneven in terms of how smart she was, sometimes seeming dumb as a post intellectually, other times able to match wits with whomever. But Tomei's performance smoothed all that over. (And it's not as noticable a variation as say, KK's character in Pirates o' the C. II.)

thanks to all who recommended this, we might never have found this on our own. I think D'Onofrio was better in The Whole Wide World, but this is a hairsbreadth 2nd place

Mysti

Happy Accidents

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions