DUAL: Theory and Application of Psychological Thrillers in Modern Cinema
Adam Bailey
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Master of Fine Arts in Film and Television
at
The Savannah College of Art and Design
© May 2011, Adam Gregory Bailey
The author hereby grants SCAD permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and
electronic thesis copies of document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter
created.
Signature of Author and Date ______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________/___/___
Annette Haywood Carter
(Sign here)
(Date here)
Committee Chair
_______________________________________________________________________/___/___
Lubomir Kocka
(Sign here)
(Date here)
Committee Member
_______________________________________________________________________/___/___
Jonathan Alvord
(Sign here)
(Date here)
Committee Member
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
DUAL: Theory and Application of Psychological Thrillers in Modern Cinema
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Film & Television Department
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Fine Arts
Savannah College of Art and Design
By
Adam Bailey
Savannah Campus, Savannah, Ga.
Submitted May, 2012
Table of Contents
Chapter
1. THESIS ABSTRACT …………………………...……………………………1
2. INTRODUCTION……………….……………………………………………2
The Exploration of the Human Condition
Social Grasp and Public Fascination
Defining the “Why” of a Serial Killer
Comparing Differing Styles within the Genre
DUAL Synopsis
3. FIGHT CLUB…………………………………………………...…………….6
Defining a Compelling Antagonist
Use of the “Love Interest”
The Grand Reveal
4. MR. BROOKS……………………………..………………………………...13
A New Role for the Killer
Creating Non-Passive Protagonists
5. PRIMAL FEAR………………………...……………………………..……..17
Analysis/Compare/Contrast
Protagonist Outside of Split Personality
The Second Twist
6. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………21
7. BIBILIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………..22
1
DUAL: Theory and Application of Psychological Thrillers in Modern Cinema
Adam Bailey
May, 2011
This thesis is an examination of contemporary mainstream films that deal with the subject
of split personality disorders and how they compare and contrast with the choices I made
directing my thesis film, DUAL. The different conventions of the genre will be inspected
along with the various ways the films differ from each other individually. In addition, it
analyzes the inherent fascination that audiences have with such films as they offer a way
to closely observe such abnormalities from a safe distance behind their screens.
2
DUAL: Theory and Application of Psychological Thrillers in Modern Cinema
Films centering on the psychology of characters of the dangerously insane remain
one of the most prevalent genres in movies today. The exploration of the psychology
surrounding what it takes for one human being to kill another is a timeless source of
material for many classic films. Among the most popular stories are films whose
murderous or otherwise villainous characters are actually part of split personalities. I will
illustrate some of the inspirations and conventions of my thesis film, DUAL by examining
the storytelling techniques employed in such films as Fight Club (1999), Mr. Brooks
(2007), and Primal Fear (1996).
The exploration of the human condition is one of the most pervasive themes in
film. Frequently, this exploration delves into the dark side of our basic humanity.
Specifically, stories about murderous characters are of a particular fascination for
filmmakers and movie-goers alike. In certain films these murderous psychopaths are
eventually revealed to suffer from a multiple personality disorder. Otherwise known as
Dissociative Identity Disorder it is “a severe condition in which two or more distinct
identities, or personality states, are present in—and alternately take control of—an
individual. The person also experiences memory loss that is too extensive to be explained
by ordinary forgetfulness.” 1
These films are able to captivate their audiences by presenting a character who
performs incredibly extreme acts while not being fully responsible for them. The novelty
1
"Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder)." Psychology Today:
Health, Help, Happiness Find a Therapist. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/dissociative-identity-disordermultiple-personality-disorder>.
3
and abnormally of a person with multiple personalities fuels the general fascination of the
viewing audience, keeping their interest constantly piqued for the next chapter in the
story. Film provides an almost “safe haven” of sorts not only to display their cruel acts
but also actively exploring the ‘why’ of the things they do. It is a testament to the staying
power of these movies that they can focus on a subject matter that in pedestrian life
usually repels and disgusts most individuals. People want to put their feet to the fire in
the context of a film: it enables them to indulge their natural curiosity in way that gets
them up close to that darkness in a way that is not only safe, but entertaining.
The staying power for these types of films is derived from humanity’s natural
interest to explore the extremes of the human psyche. Audiences are allowed to get an
intimate look at a person performing acts that the general populace could never imagine
doing. To be able to experience such an extreme perspective that a viewer otherwise
never would explore in their daily lives is one of the biggest reasons we watch films at
all. Director Bruce Evans comments, “There’s something fascinating about the snake.
It’s beautiful in that you know that it is so dangerous and I think it gives us, with a film it
gives us that [feeling] of excitement without having to put ourselves in the actual
situation” 2
An inherently engaging facet of split personality films is the balance of the
characters’ personalities towards their “real world” and their world of murder and other
dark desires. This theme of the balance between our desires and obligations and the
challenge of keeping them from conflicting is an incredibly relatable struggle to anyone
2
Topel, Fred. "Writer/Director Bruce A Evans Talks About Mr Brooks." About.com
Hollywood Movies. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.
<http://movies.about.com/od/mrbrooks/a/mrbrookbe052707.htm>.
4
watching the film. These are themes that every person can relate to in most any walk of
life. While the events portrayed in DUAL are extreme, the idea of one’s own inner
struggle with indulgence vs moderation, pleasure vs obligation, and all else regarding
“good vs bad”, are things that are part of our human condition. The contemporary human
being spends most of their adult lives attempting to achieve the balance of these central
opposing forces. The central conflict nearly always emanates from the dissonance caused
by the characters’ attempts to maintain balance. Most of DUAL was born from this
concept: the wearing of one face whilst hiding another entirely different mask and the
dissonance that the attempt to balance both will naturally cause for the characters
involved.
I graduated with a Bachelor’s of Science in Psychology for my undergraduate
degree. It is of no surprise then that stories dealing with characters of complex psyches
would garner my interest. There are many explanations to examine when a character (or a
person) feels driven to perform acts as vicious as murder. In film, part of the storytelling
is bringing these motivations to light. The ‘why’ as it pertains to their killing nature is
frequently the question that drives the entire film. The characters are examined so as to
expose what it is that makes killing such an essential need of theirs. David Fincher
discusses the pursuit of the “why”:
“But what you’re trying to show in the character is that he has a need. There’s
sensuality to this need and there’s sensuality in this need being fulfilled. So
maybe that’s wrong, but it’s the only way to help talk about it.”3
If the ‘why’ is not in question it then becomes a matter of ‘how’ they are
empowered (or rather enabled) to do the unthinkable things they do. Some films use
3
"Todd Doogan Interviews Director David Fincher." Todd Doogan Interviews Director David Fincher. 11 May 2000. Web. 30 Mar.
2012. <http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/fightclub/fincherinterview.html>.
5
things like multiple personalities as the vehicle for their characters’ heinous actions. This
is a convention that opens up a plethora of new storytelling elements that a director may
employ. Perhaps the most notable and specific element is the addition of a second central
character for which the central character is linked to for the entire film. Instantly an entire
new dynamic is created and the stakes are changed for the central character that is now
being directly tied to another. The two characters are now permanently linked, their
character objectives and needs intertwined. The second character adds to the film an
entirely new on screen persona with which to entice the audience. The intrigue is not
only derived from this new singular personality but with how those two characters
interact. The interplay between the two personalities provides an audience with an
entirely new point of interest. The examination of both separate personalities individually
is engaging but the true intrigue comes from the two personalities mixing it up on screen;
providing rich conflict.
Films that explore multiple personalities do so in various ways in order to serve
the story it is telling. Often times the characters are portrayed by two separate actors to
present a literal on-screen separation of the two personalities. Within this choice are
more variations of the relationship between the two characters. Some films have the two
personalities as antagonizing enemies. Other films have shown the two personalities, as a
sort of tandem working with one another, complementing each other’s character needs in
order to achieve their objectives. In other instances a single actor takes on the task of
embodying both personalities. While some films have the characters fully aware of their
link, others have them completely oblivious to it. When the characters are unaware of
their split personality, the discovery of which is then usually the central driving factor for
6
the film’s plot and structure. Even within that specific convention there are variations.
There are films where the central character is completely unaware that their actions and
decisions draw them closer to the crucial truth; whereas in other movies the character has
some awareness of a truth they need to uncover, even if they do not fully understand why
it is they need to discover it. The implementation of a multiple personality adds a natural
suspense that provides various options for the filmmaker in terms of decisions regarding
both character and story.
DUAL features bits and pieces from these films to present the classic split
personality story in a way that is both original from previous works yet familiar to the
audience. The film opens with a parallel sequence in which the film’s main two
characters, Jacob and Andre, are seen each on separate dates. While Jacob’s night ends
in a bed with his steady girlfriend, Andre’s ends with an added tally to his kill count.
Jacob is on some level aware of Andre’s actions but is unable to do anything to prevent
them, mainly out of fear of Andre.
Fight Club (1999), the David Fincher cult classic, is perhaps the most notable
contemporary film that doles into split personality. Edward Norton plays “The Narrator”
who is experiencing a mid-life crisis- floating through life without feeling or purpose.
His world is forever changed when he meets Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt, who
shows the Narrator a lifestyle that could free him from even feeling the need for
direction. The first act of the film establishes two characters’ relationship as that of a
mentor-disciple dynamic with the Narrator the increasingly eager student of Tyler’s
philosophies. As the stakes rise in the second act, the Narrator becomes aware of the
dangers of Tyler and how quickly his life begins to spin out of control in an entirely new
7
direction. Finally in the third act the Narrator makes the character shift to set about
stopping Tyler and his doings. It is this pursuit that brings him to the inevitable a truth
that he and Tyler Durden are actually the same person. After this major reveal of the
film’s central plot point the characters finally arrive at the end of their arcs as adversaries.
The two characters finally duel it out to see if the Narrator can stop Tyler’s final act of
terrorism.
4
Fight Club is the film that I most closely referenced in conceptualizing DUAL.
Perhaps the single most engaging aspect of the film is the dynamic between the Narrator
and Tyler Durden. The audience is treated to rich performances from both Edward
Norton and Brad Pitt. Each character individually has their own engaging aura of screen
presence and rich depth but it is through their interactions that they are brought out for
the audience. As the characters learn about each other, so too of course does the
audience. As the stakes are raised in the storyline for each character, more depths of
characterization are revealed in both their choices and how their relationship dynamic
specifically changes. This allows for elevated performances that not only compliment the
rising action but engage the audience all the more. DUAL seeks to follow the same
precedence. DUAL was written with the main focus on the struggle between two
intricately linked yet antagonizing forces, letting the drama develop through their
characterization. I set out to develop characters with the kind of depth and intricacy that
would require the actors to truly embody the roles. Without the proper amount of
intricacies and subtleties in regards to each of their characters, the dynamic between the
4
Fight Club. Dir. David Fincher. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 1999. DVD.
8
characters would be ultimately bland and unbelievable. Each character had to be
individually dynamic in order to ensure that their relationship and interactions would be
all the more compelling to the audience. Tyler Durden’s character is specifically
referenced in the design of Andre- a charismatic degenerate who is eccentrically
unpredictable. The goal in creating Andre was to create a character that audiences hate to
love; the antagonist that the viewer begrudgingly enjoys, perhaps even roots for in some
twisted way. The most crucially important difference between the two characters is Tyler
Durden in his purest form is NOT a serial killer like Andre. Tyler certainly puts little to
no value in human life and is willing to sacrifice some to promote his message in his acts
of terrorism. He is however fundamentally different from Andre in that Andre is a true
killer, motivated to by the pure desire to take life. Tyler’s motivation comes from a
nihilist philosophy while Andre submits himself to complete anarchy and selfindulgence. Tyler and Andre differ in their specific tastes for destruction but are the
same in regards the fundamental adherence to their basic morose philosophies. Jacob’s
character as a glum introvert is also inspired by Edward Norton’s portrayal of the
Narrator. Jacob and the Narrator however share less commonality in their specific
personalities. The sullen and moody disposition of the Narrator contrasts to the reserved
bashfulness of Jacob though both are seemingly at the mercy of their antagonists’
objective to further pull them into their world.
Fight Club provides a good amount of inspiration for the themes and story of
DUAL. A constant theme throughout Fight Club is Tyler’s persistence to make the
Narrator embrace and adopt Tyler’s way of life. That objective remains constant even
when the Narrator actively seeks to fight against Tyler in the conclusion of the 3rd act.
9
This is a theme that I made central to DUAL: Andre’s overall objective in the film is to
make Jacob give in to his murderous lifestyle and embrace it as his own. In Fight Club
Tyler Durden coaxes the Narrator into naively embracing Tyler’s philosophies until the
narrator decides the stakes have become too high, ultimately sparking his final turn in his
character arc. By contrast in DUAL Jacob actively attempts to resist Andre’s luring to
mayhem and murder for the entirety of the film. Jacob begins fully aware of Andre’s
dangerous nature whereas Fight Club takes much of the film to build up the Narrator’s
awareness of the hazard of Tyler Durden. For both films the created persona is
attempting to assimilate and otherwise take over the actual persona. In Fight Club the arc
from disciple to nemesis is made once the reveal of their shared identity is made clear to
the audience. Jacob in DUAL does always in fact know of his link to Andre, he musters
the resolve to fight against him upon the reveal of their own shared identity. For both
films the protagonist makes the choice to actively fight against their counterpart upon the
specific plot point revealing their split personalities. The difference is in how the two
protagonists approach their respective antagonists before that reveal: the Narrator with
curiosity and Jacob with severe aversion.
Both films also have a third essential character: the love interest. “Marla”, played
by Helena Bonham Carter is the third main character in Fight Club and is directly
responsible for the advancement of Tyler and the Narrator’s relationship. “Amber” is
Jacob’s girlfriend and the third central character in DUAL. Both Marla and Amber
become caught between their film’s main two characters as the main stake (or prize).
Marla and Amber serve as the object of affection for the protagonist, representing their
perhaps final link to humanity. While they generally serve the films’ plot in similar
10
ways, these similarities do not transfer to the specifics of each of their characters.
Amber’s personality as the nurturing playful girlfriend vastly contrasts to the devious
train-wreck that is Marla. Additionally the protagonists’ attitudes toward the “love
interest” are immensely different during the first two acts of each film. The Narrator
utterly despises Marla throughout much of the film whereas Jacob and Amber’s
relationship begins within the film as loving and cherished. From these starting points
the character arcs between both sets of characters go in wildly opposite directions. Fight
Club slowly but surely brings Marla and the Narrator together while DUAL wedges Jacob
and Amber apart further and further. The separation builds until the end of the film when
they are finally completely severed from each other despite Jacob’s final act of selfless
heroism to ultimately protect her. Both protagonists seek to save their love interests in the
third act of each film. The difference lies in how the protagonists regard her up unto that
point in the film.
The interaction of the love interest connecting with the alternate persona is an
essential element to crafting an engaging split personality story: it innumerably raises the
stakes and conflict for all characters involved. I wanted to be sure to write Amber as an
active character whose actions help to develop the plot. One element I did include with
Amber that is seen with Marla is how both characters have run ins with the alternate
personality in a sexual way. While the audience is lead to believe that Marla and Amber
are engaging with the antagonist it is then revealed that they in fact believed it to be the
protagonist; it is only the audience that is truly deceived in both instances. Despite this
both films’ protagonists end up fighting to save the life of their love interest from the
direct threat posed by the antagonist. Marla and Amber serve as the central motivating
11
factor for the protagonist to make the heroic turn to stand up to the antagonist. Their
connection to the protagonist provides the specific call to action: defeat the antagonist in
order to save the love interest’s life. The third character serves the same central idea for
each film but is gone about in an entirely different way in regards to characterization and
relationship to the other characters.
Perhaps the most specific reference to Fight Club within DUAL is the idea that the
other persona was created to fulfill a need that the central character could not satisfy on
their own. The alternate persona in some way enables the main character to engage in a
lifestyle that they themselves are cannot attain. This fundamentally gives rise to the
power of both Tyler and Andre, both being enabled by the protagonists’ weaknesses to
take more and more liberties thereby raising the stakes and overall conflict. Both films
feature the protagonist actively resisting the antagonist’s way of life in the beginning.
This is something they are compelled to do because of their fundamental character spines.
By remaining true to their character’s central nature they choose to deny the antagonist
and set out to finally somehow defeat him. The concept of the protagonist finally being
able to make the all-important heroic turn is triggered by the legitimized threat of their
other persona once they are truly revealed as the same person. That turn was something I
sought to specifically implement into DUAL; ultimately crafting the entire film for the
central reveal.
One of the most essential aspects of DUAL is the way in which the reveal of the
split personality will be handled. Fight Club is one of the most excellent references for
this specific reveal not only in the stylistic way in which it was done but also how it fits
within the plot and themes of the film. From a story sense, one of the things that worked
12
so well about Fight Club was that the film was not about the central reveal of them as a
split personality. The film did not center around the vital question of if they were the
same person but rather it uses that to advance the plot towards their ultimate conflict.
This was something I sought to emulate: I in no way wanted DUAL to be centered solely
around the reveal of split personality. The script was constructed to have the reveal tie
together the plot and character idiosyncrasies and set up the third act, not conclude it. The
two scenes vastly differ however in regards to who exactly is learning about the split
personality angle for the first time. The Narrator in Fight Club learns about his split
personality at the same time as the audience. In DUAL I reiterate that Jacob is aware of
his connection with Andre, it is only the audience who makes the connection for the first
time. There is no direct POV with Jacob to the audience in contrast with the Narrator’s
shared audience POV in Fight Club. Regardless of what the characters know, the
audience learns this new information for the first time. It is in that sense that the scenes
are alike, in addition to serving as the jumping off point of the protagonist’s final heroic
turn.
Fight Club was centrally inspirational to DUAL in specific regards to the way it
presented split personality with two separate on screen presences. The film’s rich
characterization lays the groundwork to the enthralling relationship between the two main
characters. The plot leads up to the grand reveal of the two separate characters as the
same person to then set up a final conflict as to which personality will gain complete
control. A third essential character serves as the love interest whom gets caught in the
crosshairs between the protagonist and antagonist, ultimately fueling the protagonist’s
final heroic turn. Fight Club contrasts with DUAL’s structure in regards to what is
13
known by the audience before and after the central reveal. While certain character
motivations are similar across the two films, they are expressed differently within their
specifics.
Mr. Brooks (2007), written and directed by Bruce A. Evans, follows the story of
Earl Brooks, played by Kevin Costner. Earl Brooks is a successful businessman with a
loving family. He is in every way a well-adjusted if not admirable member of society
barring one crucial dark secret: he is a serial killer. Mr. Brooks struggles to lead a normal
life while trying to wrestle with his deadly addiction. Marshall, played by William Hurt,
is the on screen embodiment of the voice in Mr. Brooks’ head that wants him to kill.
Marshall is the constant devil over Mr. Brooks’ shoulder that pushes him to indulge in his
love of murder.
Perhaps the single best part of the film is the way in which it handles the portrayal
of a man who is an addict. While Mr. Brooks is not technically a sufferer of multiple
personalities, the audience is lead to feel that way with the use of two separate actors for
each character. Mr. Brooks is constantly at odds with himself trying to balance his
normalized lifestyle and his proclivity for killing. He truly does want it to stop but is
ultimately unable to turn his back on Marshall, who constantly pushes him towards
murder. The dynamic between Mr. Brooks and Marshall constantly shifts: Marshall at
some points is an enabler, other times a mentor, sometimes even a therapist to Mr.
Brooks. The struggle is not found between Mr. Brooks and Marshall but rather in Mr.
Brooks himself, constantly torn between his objections and desires. Mr. Brooks does not
put the two main characters at odds like Fight Club but instead creates a centralized “man
vs. self” conflict. This conflict is set against outside forces that by some development in
14
the plot make Mr. Brooks have to kill in order to protect himself and his family.
Throughout the film the audience feels true empathy for our anti-hero protagonist. This
is because the film effectively creates a dynamic where Mr. Brooks is not always fully in
control of himself, in large part usually due to Marshall’s guidance.5 The film gracefully
and effectively depicts a man struggling with what is a deep seeded addiction. It is that
motif of the movie that gives it legs to stand on throughout.
Mr. Brooks provides a considerable amount of reference material for which I
considered in my creation of DUAL. While Earl Brooks is not a true split personality, the
theme of one mind inhabited by two personas fits the bill for a film relevant to the themes
and plot that I am dealing with for my film. Mr. Brooks has the principal motif of two
separately portrayed characters that occupy one brain space. While it is not a constant
source of drama (as with the other films), both personas are indeed vying to exert their
will. The essential power that Marshall has over Mr. Brooks is the frequent ability he has
to know the protagonist better than he knows himself. He knows the exact ways to
appeal to Mr. Brooks much like Andre knows the exact ways to antagonize Jacob.
Familiarity is the true weapon that the alternate persona has against the protagonist. The
main difference though in how it is expressed in the films between Marshall and Andre is
that Marshall has true caring for Mr. Brooks whereas Andre has nothing but malice for
Jacob. Marshall wants to enable Mr. Brooks to kill almost out of a sense of loyalty while
also guiding and protecting him along the way. Andre wants Jacob to give in to his
lifestyle so that Andre himself can assume control over Jacob in the battle for their mind.
Marshall is more contained to the voice in Mr. Brooks’ head; he does not interact with
5
Mr. Brooks. Dir. Bruce A. Evans. Perf. Kevin Costner and Demi Moore. MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, 2007. DVD
15
any other characters but Mr. Brooks. Both however share the essential singular focus on
killing. Beyond that primary objective is where differences arise: Marshall’s secondary
objective wants to protect Mr. Brooks while Andre simply wishes to indulge himself in
other ways when he is not killing, whether it be sex or drugs or whatever other treats.
Both antagonists share the objective to assimilate the protagonist to their way of life but
each go about it very differently. Marshall tempts Mr. Brooks with murder as a way to
satiate Mr. Brooks’ pain whereas Andre approaches Jacob in a far more aggressive
volatile way. Each protagonist (both Jacob and Mr. Brooks) struggle to resist their
alternate persona but Mr. Brooks uses that persona as an ally while Andre is generally
nothing but an antagonist.
Mr. Brooks does an admiral job of establishing Mr. Brooks’ ‘why’ for being a
killer. In the film’s first murder scene (early in the first act) Mr. Brooks is shown having
a pseudo euphoric reaction directly after killing his victims. This was an element that I
found to be essential not only to this film but the killer genre in general. Often in films
about extremist indulgences the audience is not shown what it is about the particular
activity that drives the character to do pursue it so intensely. Getting a look at the ‘why’
of Mr. Brooks’ serial killing resonates with the audience and sets the stage for the rest of
the film. To see how killing pays off for the character makes the rest of the film
believable as we watch his struggle and torment throughout the rest of the movie. It not
only provided a credible backdrop for the rest of the film but was also true to the
specifics of what motivates true serial killers: in this case, to get off on the wave of
euphoria. I personally appreciated this touch not only as an amateur psychologist but
what it made me feel as I watched it: entirely uncomfortable. Mr. Brooks does not kill
16
for some diabolical scheme or far-fetched plot-device, he kills for the pure psychological
need within him. This realism creates an all together more disturbing reaction within the
viewer. That in particular resonated with me as a filmmaker in writing DUAL. In the
opening parallel sequence, Andre slits his victims throat, then cradles her as she dies in
his arms. The audience will watch him go through his own wave of euphoria, savoring
the thrill in every way imaginable. I wanted to have that specific moment in DUAL
where the audience gets that glimpse into the crucial ‘why’ to not only establish it but to
do it in a way that would disturb the audience through their innate sense of humanity.
Mr. Brooks has another interesting aspect about it with how it constructed the
protagonist, Earl Brooks himself. Mr. Brooks struggles both internally and externally in
almost equal capacities. He struggles with himself to finally walk away from his
addiction while struggling against external forces that specifically call for his aptitude for
killing. He is forced to go back to killing by other characters and plot turns while being
simultaneously guided along by Marshall. Between these outside forces and Marshall
inside his own head it would have been very easy for Mr. Brooks to be written and
portrayed as a passive character. If this had happened the film would ultimately not have
worked in any capacity. Similarly, in DUAL Jacob is pushed against by outside forces
either by Andre’s antagonizing or Amber’s expectations of him as a boyfriend. I was
extremely careful with making Jacob a character that is at once steered by the people
around him while also having him make active choices. If handled incorrectly, Jacob’s
character would come across as passive and boring. Mr. Brooks provides an example of
how a protagonist can be so heavily motivated by (pseudo) external forces while still
making bold aggressive choices that leave the audience aligned and engaged.
17
A specific example of this balance is seen in how Mr. Brooks finally handles a
man who knows his secret and attempts to blackmail him if he is not taken on a kill. Mr.
Brooks has no choice but to go along with it. Though he is in a tenuous position he is
able to subtlety manipulate the situation thanks to his substantial experience with killing.
He calls upon this experience to disarm, relocate and finally kill the man, virtually all of
which happening before the blackmailer has a chance to even recognize the danger he is
in. The scene ends with the theme of Mr. Brooks’ careful balance between lack of
control and methodical manipulation- after handing the blackmailer a gun to use to shoot
him, it looks as if Mr. Brooks will allow himself to be killed. Only after the gun
repeatedly does not fire does Mr. Brooks then reveal that he bent the firing pin of the gun
….in case he changed his mind about dying. Mr. Brooks merely gives the man (as well
as the audience) the feeling that they are in control when in fact he retains all of it. Mr.
Brooks goes along with the supposed plan to kill himself by the hands of another person
right up until the last moment; illustrating that in reality he was in control of the situation
the entire time. Instead he makes the active character choice to stay alive on behalf of his
pregnant daughter. Not only is Mr. Brooks’ final character choice and active one but it is
congruent to his other motivations form earlier in the film.
Primal Fear (1996), directed by Gregory Hoblit, is another split personality film
that was a source of inspiration for how DUAL was constructed. The film’s protagonist is
high profile trial lawyer Martin Vail (played by Richard Gere), a seemingly untouchable
private defender at the top of his profession. Vail takes on the trial of a young country
boy who is suddenly and very publicly wanted for the murder of an archbishop. The boy,
Aaron (played by Edward Norton in his breakout role), is a slow talking soft-hearted
18
respectful young man who appears by all accounts incapable of murder yet he was seen
fleeing the scene of the crime as it happened. The film’s main question now centers
around how this seemingly meek country boy could have pulled off such a heinous crime.
Our protagonist’s main objective is to discover what is the missing piece to the puzzle.
That missing piece is revealed to be none other than a split personality within Aaron
which he himself is seemingly fully unaware of. This revelation gives Vail a new
approach to seek the acquittal of his client which he then successfully attains, citing
mental insanity. This leads to the film’s final twist in which Aaron reveals that he in fact
had only been pretending to appear insane, asserting that in fact Aaron was a made up
personality and the murderous “Roy” was in fact who he really was. While the split
personality is realized in a completely different way than in DUAL I wanted to use the
reveals and twists in a similar way. Specifically the use of a second reveal to end the film
on a final twist was something I found to be particularly intriguing.
Primal Fear differs from the previous two films analyzed in a few critical ways.
The split personalities are portrayed by only one actor; crucial for this particular film’s
plot. Additionally, in contrast to both Fight Club ,Mr. Brooks and also DUAL, Primal
Fear is the only film among these whose protagonist is not one of the split personalities
in any way. Rather the audience experiences the film from Vail’s perspective in trying to
decipher the actions of the supposed split personality in Aaron. Primal Fear has far less
surrealism in its storytelling, creating the need for a single actor to play both
personalities; just as someone from an outside perspective would see them. Being that
the audience is placed behind Vail’s perspective, they must perceive Aaron’s “insanity”
in the same way that Vail does: witnessing both embodiments within one person. This of
19
course contrasts a great deal from the other films where the audience is placed directly in
between the split personalities in battle. More so than the other films, the split
personality is more of a plot device than a central theme but it is the way in which it is
used so effectively as a plot device that spoke to my as a filmmaker.
Primal Fear makes use of the conventions of split personality without crafting
the entire film towards the psychological thriller genre conventionally seen with such
stories. The use of split personality is used more so as a plot device but it is done in a
way that is both unexpected yet well thought out. The reveal of the split personality
occurs at the end of the second act. Doing this uses a major twist in the film to set the
stage for the third act, as opposed predicating the entire third act on the reveal. This in
particular was something I sought out to do with DUAL- I did not want the film to center
around the simple reveal of a split personality, I wanted that reveal to be what set the
stage for the final showdown between our main characters. To structure the film in this
way is a far more interesting way to tell the story: the mystery of the first two acts leading
to a shocking truth that then in turn sets up the power struggle of the third act. Telling the
story in such a way provides layers to the audience. Gearing an entire film for a single
twist at the end of a film in my opinion is poor storytelling. A reveal must lead to a
revelation by the character(s), without which it is meaningless.
Primal Fear handles the balance of the primary twist in a satisfying way but then
ends on a second major reveal to end the film. Aaron slips into his murderous
counterpart, Roy, one final time to reveal that he in fact does not suffer from split
personality. He then informs Vail that Aaron was actually the made up identity all along,
20
not Roy. 6 This aspect of the film intrigued me the most. This last twist caught my
attention and got me thinking on how I could end DUAL with a second shocking reveal.
My issue with Primal Fear’s second twist however was that it was self-serving: the entire
film builds to one reveal of a split personality just to simply go back on that saying the
character was lying the entire time. While executed well, I found the idea itself to be
flimsy at best. This taught me another valuable lesson: the twist must not only pay off for
the plot but for the audience as well. Frequently, twists or reveals are seen as cop-outs in
storytelling but I believe that if they are set up in a coherent and compelling way, the
twist itself is almost inconsequential. As storytellers we must always remember that it is
so frequently the lead up to a moment that contains the drama as opposed to the actual
moment itself. That way when the audience comes across the reveal or payoff, the actual
result is inconsequential; the journey itself was the compelling aspect.
Where Primal Fear used a second twist to provide a last taste of conflict to a
seemingly resolved situation, my film remains unresolved until the literal last frame. The
first reveal of DUAL is the fact that the two main characters are split personalities. This
sets up the third act with the essential question “who is going to win?” I used a second
twist reveal to answer this question right up to the very ending of the film, leaving the
viewer with a sudden shock. When films are able to implement a final unveiling to shock
the audience one last time I believe it improves their staying power. It was Primal Fear
that cued me to the impact of such an ending that was not attempted by the other films
referenced. While the realization of the split personality was done all together differently
it was the usage of the plot reveals that helped me structure DUAL in a vivid way.
6
Primal Fear. Dir. Gregory Hoblet. Paramount Pictures, 1996. DVD.
21
Films about split personality will always fascinate audiences. They offer
perspective to a world that most human beings never come into personal contact with.
They provide audiences with stories that satiate a sort of morbid curiosity for darker and
edgier subject matter. Mostly of all though, films dealing with split personality are
usually at their core dealing with themes and issues that each person watching can relate
to. The struggle to balance one’s own “yin and yang” is realized within everyone no
matter the personal stakes. These are themes pervasive to anyone’s situation in any walk
of life. They deal very closely with people’s internal and external conflicts in how they
interact, providing compelling drama for the audience naturally. Fight Club, Mr. Brooks
and Primal Fear are films that each tackle the tale of split personality but do so in
strikingly different ways. DUAL was crafted with all of these films in mind to hone in
what would be the right story telling conventions to use that best would best tell the story.
In the end I believe to have created a film that is both original and unpredictable while
also playing to the familiar conventions of the genre.
22
Bibliography
"Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder)." Psychology Today:
Health, Help, Happiness Find a Therapist. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/dissociative-identity-disordermultiple-personality-disorder>.
Topel, Fred. "Writer/Director Bruce A Evans Talks About Mr Brooks." About.com
Hollywood Movies. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.
<http://movies.about.com/od/mrbrooks/a/mrbrookbe052707.htm>.
"Todd Doogan Interviews Director David Fincher." Todd Doogan Interviews Director
David Fincher. 11 May 2000. Web. 30 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/fightclub/fincherinterview.html>.
Fight Club. Dir. David Fincher. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 1999. DVD.
Mr. Brooks. Dir. Bruce A. Evans. Perf. Kevin Costner and Demi Moore. MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, 2007. DVD
Primal Fear. Dir. Gregory Hoblet. Paramount Pictures, 1996. DVD.