I just finished watching Flirting with Disaster, an early movie by David O. Russell, director/writer of I <3 Huckabees. Due to certain ideas we’ve been kicking around at work, I’m currently quite locked in to a specific way of looking at the world, which got me thinking about the story structures used to build this movie and how they are exploited to create and release tension.
Spoilers herein.
Here is an excellent example of a story being driven by its own restructuring.
It specifically draws attention to how people build a certain worldview, then try to fit new facts into this worldview until there are too many contradictions and the worldview has to be restructured.
There is even a character, herself a filmmaker, who is a student of this phenomenon. She arranges meetings between adopted children, now grown, and the parents they’ve never met, to see how this new piece of information (meeting their parents) affects the child’s worldview.
The paradigm for this restructuring theme is the “bumping” incident. The husband and filmmaker integrate the dad’s story about “bumping” into their worldview. Then when they are approached by a van on the highway, they try to fit this fact into their worldview, thinking the van is trying to rob them. When the contradiction arises that the van is not trying to rob them, they restructure their worldview to say that the dad is neurotic and his story was exaggerated or highly unlikely. The filmmaker character explicitly gives this explanation after the incident.
This worked well for me, because at this point in the movie, I was building a worldview where in this movie, being of the Ben Stiller romantic comedy genre, the things that can go wrong will go wrong, often in a situationally ironic way. So with the dad’s neurotic story, I thought that for sure this ridiculous scenario would actually happen to them. So then the “twist”, this restructuring, happened to my worldview at the same time as it happened to the husband and filmmaker characters.
The restructuring theme is used throughout the story at different scales. On two occasions, Ben Stiller’s character meets a person he presumes is his parent, and “fishes” for facts that reinforce this worldview (”we have the same forehead!”). Tension builds as contradictions between the actual situation and the expected parent-child situation arise. The tension releases when Ben’s (and our) worldview is restructured to say that the person is not Ben’s parent.
We also have the affair situations that set up tension. This tension is between the two possible worlds: one where the spouse is being faithful and the other where the spouse is having an affair. The movie sets up two affairs, complimentarily between the husband and wife. These tension threads span the entire movie and are exploited for all the strongest jokes. Specifically I’m thinking of the tension created around Ben breaking the glass display case, and him having to explain, that is, fit this fact into the worldview he projects to his wife, where his relationship with the other woman is innocent.
The huge tension release comes when Ben bursts into the room his wife is in. He sees her intimately involved with the other man, but is not surprised, showing that he has already integrated this information into his worldview. The next lines he exchanges with his wife reveal that he knows that she knows he’s been flirting with the other woman. Indeed all of the “he knows she knows” layers have collapsed. He and his wife share the same worldview. Trust. The big release.
In the same sweep, it is revealed through the mishaps each spouse has in his/her affair, that the two are really “meant for each other” (in the way prescribed by the date genre).