(08/20/00)

WARNING: VERY MINOR SPOILERS!

"I am a sick man"

Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) torments and tortures women by drowning them in what is described in the script as "The Cell." All the while he videotapes these terrible events to watch later. After his victim is dead, takes the body to another location where he bleaches, cleans, and "arranges" to a specific position on a platform. He then suspends himself above it and ejaculates onto the corpse, and later tosses the body into a river or a ditch without cleaning them up again. A smart killer he is not.

This is a late script review for the The Cell, which just opened. Movie reviews for it have been coming in and I must admit that I’ve read many of them. What hasn’t surprised me is the spectrum of varying opinions.

On one side are those who see the film’s dark and "daring" portrayal of a serial killer—actually the mind of a serial killer—as some kind of an accomplishment. Others have praised its cinematography and direction as well as the acting. On the other, are those who call the film nothing more than an exercise in exploitative genre filmmaking, a psychological thriller "without thrill." They assault the acting as contrived and uninspiring.

I’ve not seen the movie yet and won’t until I write my script review. I only go a couple of times a month to the theater anyway. I don’t like being around people all that much. But the main reason why I’m waiting on this one is that the script was enough to make me sick. I can not believe any movie critic found redeemable qualities in the story.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think Mark Protosevich can write, I think he can. Unfortunately his efforts are wasted here. The script has some nice elements and his writing can be very engaging. There is a fastidious narrative, characters with clear goals, and there is suspense. But what I couldn’t get over was that the script disgusted me.

When a story does nothing more than glorify the strong and punish the weak, when it seeks to celebrate human venality and depravity, I have to draw the line. But what’s worse is that it does it for no other apparent purpose than to be obscene. Relentlessly obscene in several parts actually.

Protosevich’s script offends to the point where the story is rendered secondary to the horrific and disturbing events taking place. Any decent writer could hack out a serial killer script. Anyone with a sick mind can come up with a premise that is disgusting. I don’t consider this script an accomplishment, but an embellishment of perverted proportions.

I was stupefied by the script’s underlining validation for why a psychotic and sadistic killer would torture and defecate women. In one of the more grotesque scenes the psycho suspends himself above them and ejaculates onto the naked corpse. I can’t imagine this theme being present in the finished movie. But from what the reviews hint, it does indeed remain.

Quoting from the script, page 21: "We HEAR Stargher remove his pants and shoes and he steps into the pool of light naked. His lean, muscular frame is adorned with crude tattoos and terrible scars, a few from awful burns. When he turns his back to us, we find EIGHT METAL RINGS, thick and strong, PIERCED through his flesh. Two columns of four, on either side of the spine, running from shoulder blade to just below the waist. What in god’s name are they for…?"

And of course we get to see what they are used for.

But what is most shameful about the script is that it insults our intelligence by insinuating that mommy and daddy somehow are to blame for Stargher’s brutal perversions. He was abused and had no choice but to kill and torture. Where’s a social worked when you need one?

His inner child is innocent and can’t possibly be blamed. That’s the message I got from the script. He was only a little boy when they did those terrible things to him. Those unfortunate children who are abused need help and understanding. But the script tries to develop sympathy for the killer by giving us his inner child and the experiences that apparently changed him into a monster. Unfortunately, this wasn’t event the weakest aspect of the narrative.

Here’s the basic storyline. Dr. Caitlin Santos (Jennifer Lopez) and her small team have created a device that allows her to virtually plug her mind into that of another. She must be mildly sedated and hooked up to the same device as the patient.

Special Agent Peter Novak (Vince Vaughn) is hunting the psycho-killer, Carl Stargher. Through an unbelievable simple and contrived series of events Novak and his team find Stargher’s home. When they get there they discover him in a coma from his disease. This is after he has already killed and debauched several victims. They now only have 40 some odd hours to find Julia, the last victim who is trapped in a cell that will fill with water when the time runs out. They search the home and property, but she is not there. Enter Caitlin and her team. They talk Caitlin into entering the mind of Stargher to find out where Julia is held. At one point a discussion takes place between Caitlin and Peter:

Quoting from page 73 of the script: "CAITLIN: When I was a resident, I treated a thirteen-year-old girl who woke up one morning and cut off her father’s head with a butcher knife. When the police found her, she was sitting on the couch watching soap operas… with the head on the cushion next to her. (Checks Novak’s unreadable reaction) Not only was this girl an undiagnosed schizophrenic, she had been sexually abused by this man since she was nine. (Challenging him) When I was with her, she always referred to her father as ‘it.’ Now. Is she evil?"

Novak says no, but he believes the father was evil. So she continues:

Continue: "CAITLIN: (exasperated) Oh come on! Good and Evil is just too simplistic a stance…"

Really, is it? The script goes on to say that those who suffer from disorders can not distinguish between "fantasy and reality." I really feel the writer placed himself in a literary corner. We get to see all of the horrible things that he does. We don’t see all of them, but we know what he is doing. But then the writer hedges on Stargher being truly bad by showing us all of these terrible moments his childhood.

Ultimately the basic storyline makes the screenwriter look a little simpleminded. The major events that move the story forward were predictable. And why is it that we should be ignorant to the feelings of the victim, whom we never seem to get to know?

The story’s premise is ultimately doomed. I kept asking myself, "who would know what the mind of a killer looks like anyway?" No matter how twisted it is it’s probably more elaborate or simple that it has to be presented. Even if the writer interviewed dozens of mass murders he still presents a storyline that is subjective and takes the liberty of assuming the moviegoer would just go along with it. Some will I’m sure, but most people won’t.

In respect to the quality of the writing it’s a shame it’s used for this end. There is a unique world created here by the screenwriter. The scenes dealing with the inner workings of Stargher’s mind are graphic and detailed. They evoke emotion by themselves without dialogue. There are also some other scenes where Caitlin is trying to help a little boy who is in a come that are beautifully written. There are some majestic and radiant aspects to the script where the writing vividly creates a world separate from the physical that should be alluring to watch.

The director is Tarsem Singh who is an unknown quantity. In 1991 he directed the video for R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion" which was critically acclaimed. I’m not sure that’s enough experience for a project like this, but we’ll see.