The Road Less Taken

OPEN YOUR EYES (1997)

ABRE LOS OJOS

THE ROAD LESS TAKEN

Alejandro Amenabar is truly a Wunderkind—the genuine article—without the tiresome posturing and petulance of a director like Lars Von Trier. Amenabar, while in his early teens began filming shorts. By his late teens, he finished THE HEAD (1992), a 33 minute film that contained a lot of gory and grisly effects—including a decapitation. He went on to “film school”—but ironically, he was not a good student. He balked against studying the techniques and films of the past—how very different from the studious zeal shown by say a Scorsese or a Spielberg. He flunked out of Madrid ’s Computense University —where he was a cinema major. He had conflicts with authority—especially one professor who flunked him twice in his “Film Writing” course.

One of his short films came to the attention of Spanish producer/director Jose Lus Cuerda—who asked Amenabar to write a film script for him. The results became TESIS (THESIS) in 1996. As his feature film debut—this movie created a sensation—and it went on to win seven Goya awards (Spanish Oscars)—and many other festival awards. Some worried that this film’s success was secondary to beginner’s luck. But in the very next year, Amenabar silenced the nay-Sayers with the presentation of his enigmatic masterpiece—ABRE LOS OJOS (1997). It did not get complete International release until 1998. OJOS surpassed TESIS in box office receipts, critical acclaim, and awards. Amenabar emerged as a full-fledged director, writer, producer, music composer, and sometimes actor—not bad for a lad who flunked out of film school.

He has only directed four feature films in the last eight years—and they have all been excellent. Following OJOS, after collaboration with Tom Cruise on VANILLA SKY, he directed THE OTHERS (2001), his first film in English for Cruise’s production company. It was very well received. The star, Nicolle Kidman—raved about Amenabar’s talent as a director. Then breaking out of his SF/Horror mode—in 2004 he presented the world with THE SEA INSIDE, starring Javier Bardem. It won an Oscar as the “Best Foreign Language Film”.

As the story goes, ABRE LOS OJOS was screened at Sundance in 1998. When Tom Cruise—who was there doing promo for Kubrick’s film, EYES WIDE SHUT—saw OJOS—he was thrilled and overwhelmed by it. It is said that before the final credits finished rolling—he was on his cell phone to his agent working up a deal to purchase the remake rights. Cruise put the deal together, and he was the one that approached Cameron Crowe to direct it—who had directed him in JERRY MAGUIRE (1996)—that became a 100 million dollar blockbuster. Crowe had seen and was pumped up about OJOS as well. So they contacted Amenabar and convinced him to join in on the project—to write the screenplay for VANILLA SKY. [The title, VANILLA SKY—was considered for Crowe’s previous movie, ALMOST FAMOUS, but Dreamworks did not warm to the title. So Crowe carried it around in his pocket for years.] With Tom Cruise at the helm of this project, there were some in the industry who dubbed the effort, EYES WIDE OPEN. Actually, VANILLA SKY did not fare all that well at the box office. It did better internationally than it did in America . Many people were just baffled by its multi-layered plots and mixed genre. When I saw it in 2001—I didn’t particularly like it. Perhaps, I thought at the time, it would have been a stronger film if Cruise had not been in the lead. But presently, after viewing ABRE LOS OJOS—I had to give VANILLA SKY a second look with somewhat more sensitive and educated eyes. I am happy to report that the re-viewing of SKY emerged as a more positive experience.

So now I realize—in terms of the film history—these two movies are joined at the hip. They are an odd pairing—almost like dissimilar Siamese twins. In order to review ABRE LOS OJOS, I think one needs to make comments that encompass both films. But with Alejandro Amenabar’s participation in VANILLA SKY—the two films, in some respects, are whelped from the same sire. ABRE LOS OJOS, in addition to screening at Sundance in 1998, it was the opening film at the Berlin Film Festival—and it won the Gran Prix at the Tokyo International Film Festival.

When one looks at Amenabar’s filmography—you find 6 films listed. That includes his first two “short” films—HIMENOPTERO (THE HEAD) finished in 1991—a 33 minute movie in which Amenabar appeared as an actor—and LUNA (1995), a short film that he and Eduardo Noriega both appeared in. As a musician, he has composed musical scores on 11 films—5 of which were not his own.

Mike Hodges of FANGORIA wrote,” He differs from other Spanish directors inasmuch as he does not ingratiate himself on pet themes—such as national foibles or recent past history—but instead ventures into other spheres and has no fears about embarking into the phantasmagorical, the psychological, or even the quasi-surrealist modes.
Although ABRE LOS OJOS sounds like an old-fashioned psycho-thriller—the power of Amenabar’s vision lies in the story’s complexity—and the deftness with which he weaves apparently disparate incomprehensible threads into a compelling and surprising tapestry of suspense, weird passions, horror—and more. Amenabar uses his camera to evoke dreams that are reality—and realities that turn out to be hallucinations—to conjure up sensations of déjà vu—to visualize dreams within flashbacks—and flashbacks within dreams.”

Amenabar once said,” My movies are not movies of answers—but of questions.”

He has been compared to Alfred Hitchcock because of the marked creepiness of his first three films—and this is a comparison that Amenabar enjoys. It has been suggested that OJOS was a bit of a tribute to Hitchcock—a kind of retooling of VERTIGO (1958). I certainly flashed on Hitchcock several times while watching OJOS—secondary to some odd camera angles and set ups—and the pounding Bernard Herrman-like musical score. Amenabar claims not to be much of a student of film history—but I feel he owes a lot to David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, and even Dario Argento. His writing has been compared to the science ficition literary classics of Philip K. Dick.

Amenabar stated,” I wouldn’t say that I’m a very controlling person. For instance—when I talk to actors, I don’t tell them exactly what I want—because I want them to surprise me. I even have been known to encourage them to change some of the verses of the script if they need to. As a kid, I liked to read horror and crime novels. My mother used to take my brother and me out to buy second-hand books written in the 1930-40’s. In horror movies today—it’s a lot of fast cut shots—and lots of loud noise on the sound track. Actually I like to do the opposite—to play with the silence.”

Rene Rodriguez of CULTURA wrote,” Amenabar scares us with his silence. We are talking the genuinely frightening and disturbing stuff—the kind that follows you home after you have left the theater—and climbs into bed with you—ready to haunt your nightmares.”

Amenabar said further,” It is much scarier to hide the monster [look at how effectively that worked for Spielberg in the first third of JAWS (1975)]—to really play with the silence and the darkness instead. That is the whole point of mystery and suspense—not showing things—but rather toying with primal fears.”

Raphael Pour-Hashem of the DVD TIMES wrote,” It is however Alejandro Amenabar who is the most impressive with regards to the film. His direction carries with it an assured confidence that generates trust on the audience’s part. It is often very hard to tell which direction OJOS is headed—but you are never in doubt as to whether Amenabar is in full control or not. It is obvious that the majority of Western audiences will prefer Crowe’s VANILLA SKY—but Amenabar’s ABRE LOS OJOS is a better film—and a much more unsettling experience. He has no desire to “tell us a story”—as he is much more concerned with generating certain emotions—trying to destroy any notion the audience has of safety. The film is a nightmarish vision into the realms of the unknown sub-consciousnesses. It doesn’t claim to know the answers—but at least it offers a helping hand in terms of addressing them.”

For me, Alejandro Amenabar has struck solid and familiar chords—as he has touched on classical themes that have been previously explored by many of the literary and cinema giants of the past. The idea—and too often the sad reality—that those persons who are beautiful and handsome are part of an elite minority—constantly reinforced by the media and society’s fixation on thinness, youth, and beauty—is the stanchion, the backbone of Amenabar’s connection to BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, DR. JEKYL AND MR. HYDE, and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA—and to some extent THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980). I think that the manner in which Amenabar reconfigured these classic themes was touching on brilliance. ABRE LOS OJOS paid homage to films like JACOB’S LADDER (1990), and TOTAL RECALL (1990), and clearly paved the way for later films like DARK CITY (1998), THE TRUMAN SHOW (1998), and all three of THE MATRIX movies—as well as the new film THE ISLAND (2005).

Hans Burman was the cinematographer for OJOS. He is a superlative lenser that had previously worked with Amenabar on that director’s freshman film, TESIS (1996). A veteran cameraman, he has worked on 101 films since 1965. His photography on OJOS seemed dark, moody, and disturbing—and sometimes very stylized. In the last scene of the film—on the roof top of that sky scraper—the blue skies and puffy white clouds were clearly a painted backdrop. [I have never been a fan of this technique. It harkens back to the old studio system, where so many of the exterior scenes needed to be shot in the studio rather than on location. I didn’t the technique in many of Fellini’s films either—like in the excessively stylized CASANOVA (1976) with Donald Sutherland, or ARMARCORD (1973). Even Martin Scorsese used that technique in an outdoor scene in NEW YORK, NEW YORK (1977)] Burman’s muted tones should be compared and juxtaposed to John Toll’s work on VANILLA SKY—where we are bombasted with an explosive feast of primary colors. One critic wrote about Burman’s work on OJOS, “His camera images were sparse—as if exploiting the strong notions of alienation and insignificance the film employs.”

James Berardinelli of REEL VIEWS wrote,” ABRE LOS OJOS touches on and passes through so many genres that it transcends categorization. One moment it is a melodrama—at another it’s a romance—then film noir—then a cautionary tale—then a morality play—then science fiction. Perhaps the most amazing thing is how ably and seamlessly Amenabar blends so many diverse elements together. He uses conventional narrative techniques—flashbacks, dream sequences, and scenes in the “present”—but the way in which he pieces them together gives us a sense that we, along with the protagonist, are unraveling a serpentine scheme. With every passing moment and each new revelation—we have the feeling that when the puzzle is complete—many questions will remain unanswered.”

Eduardo Noriega—aka Eduardo Noriega “Gomez”, played Cesar, the wealthy playboy anti-hero. He is 32 years old—a year younger than Amenabar. He is considered quite a poster boy, playboy, and “movie star” in Spain —and in Europe . One can peruse his glossy publicity photos on several places on the Net. He has appeared in 25 films since 1995. He worked with Amenebar in LUNA (1995), and TESIS (1996)—his talent being one of the reasons that Amenabar got the chance to direct a “feature film” in 1996. ABRE LOS OJOS (1997) was his 7th film—and he was nominated for a Goya for that role. He has just completed starring in CHE (2005)—which hasn’t been released yet.

His Cesar had just the right amount of smugness, good looks, arrogance and conceit so that we could believe that he would thrive on the rich boy adventures initially presented. Priding himself that he had seldom slept with any woman more than once was consistent with his characterization—exhibiting consummate selfishness and no respect for women whatsoever. So in blatant karmic and hubris terms—he certainly set himself up for his terrible fall from grace and privilege. As an actor, he spent more than half his screen time having to emote from under a ton of make-up or a latex mask—no mean feat. He never made any kind of attempt to soften or to make Cesar likeable or sympathetic. This was one of the reasons his characterization was stronger than Tom Cruise’s version. Cruise just could not dig deep enough within himself to find the creepiness, the callousness, and then the genuine despair. So I found Noriega very believable as the handsome rogue who was forced to descend to the level of angry disfigured brute. After losing his “beauty”—Cesar seemed to lose his identity, and what he had always considered his quality of life. Suicide seemed to be a workable solution to him with that mindset. Consistent with his randyness—after staying up all night with Sofia, and just “talking” with her—not sleeping with her, it also seemed logical that Cesar would not turn down Nuria’s offer of a quick roll in the hay as compensation for his chaste evening. He took the bait hungrily—letting his loins dictate the off-kilter logic that made the decision for him—a tiny decision on most mornings—but on that fateful morning it was pivotal in terms of the tragedy that would soon overtake him.

Blake French of FILMCRITIC.COM wrote,” If Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch had collaborated on a project—the result might have been something like ABRE LOS OJOS. Kubrick’s most common themes—imaginary worlds, sexual and social obsessions, distrust of emotion, human depravity, and a journey toward freedom and self-knowledge—all present themselves here. Lynch’s usual themes—that of dreams and illusion vs. reality—persuasion—fear—self-submission—murder and curiosity—also sprinkle themselves into this fine movie stirring up a complex recipe.”

Matt Langdon of IF MAGAZINE wrote,” Imagine KAFKA by way of David Lynch—with a pinch of Bunuel. Then throw in MASK, SECONDS, and MAN WITHOUT A FACE—and you get the idea. Unfortunately—its playful narrative structure ultimately becomes hard to follow. Amenabar wants to layer the confusions until we are lost as the protagonist—but too often it feels forced.”

Penelope Cruz, aka Penelope Cruz “Sanchez”, played the radiant Sofia . Cruz is 31 years old—two years younger than Amenabar. She is often referred to as the “Madonna of Madrid”, and the “Spanish Enchantress”.
She studied classical ballet for nine years at Spain ’s National Conservatory. But at 15, she went to her first “acting” audition—got the job and has been an “actress” every since. I have known other actresses in the past that had a lot of dance training when they were younger—and it seems to show up in their gait—their walk. Cruz has an odd gait—often seeming a little clunky. She is, of course, very sexy and feminine—there just seems to be something odd in her movements.

She has had a very busy career, having had 43 film appearances since 1992. Her first major role, when she was 16-17 years old—was in JAMON, JAMON (1992). She also was very effective as Luz in BELLE EPOQUE (1992). It was quite an auspicious launching of her career. OJOS was her 10th film. In Western cinema, she went on to star in WOMAN ON TOP (2000), ALL THE PRETTY HORSES (2000), BLOW (2001) with Johnny Depp, CAPTAIN CORRELLI’S MANDOLIN (2001) with Nicolas Cage [who stunk up the role], and then VANILLA SKY also in 2001.

Cruz speaks four languages—Spanish, English, Italian, and French. She loves to take in stray cats. [I wonder what her house smells like.] Socially she is good friends with Salma Hayek—whom she emulates and respects immensely. She lived with Spanish Pop singer, Nacho Caro, for a time—and during that relationship got involved in several liberal causes. She went with Matt Damon for several months post-shooting of ALL THE PRETTY HORSES (2000). Her relationship with Tom Cruise [a match made in Hollywood —Cruz & Cruise], post-shooting on VANILLA SKY (2001) lasted more than a year. On the extras disc for the DVD release of VANILLA SKY—we see Cruise and Cruz drawing closer together as they slogged through tedious months of an international publicity tour. One scene that struck me was when they were in Madrid —when the fantasy, the conglomerate of the two films had come full circle. There were shots of her perched between Cameron Crowe and Alejandro Amenabar—a living link between the two super directors. There was one intriguing scene, at some social event, where Penelope was dancing a slow sexy flamenco—wearing Cruise’s cap—bare midriff and long skirt—gyrating her hips seductively to that Andalusian beat. That filmed scene, capturing a tiny moment of her real vitality and sexual prowess—will stay with me longer than any of her screen time in either film—even her nude scenes, which are always wonderful to behold.

It was reported that she made 2 million dollars for reprising her role as Sofia in VANILLA SKY. Recently, for a few months post-shooting on SAHARA (2005)—she was seen in public being squired about by Matthew McConaughey, her co-star in the film. Does there seem to be some kind of pattern in her socialization and behavior? Like the insecure and manipulative Grace Kelly—she seems to bed all of her co-stars. I wonder if Nicolas Cage took a shot at her after MANDOLIN? There have not been rumors about her with Johnny Depp. Perhaps he was just too weird or too hip for her.

Cruz has said,” No one will take you seriously once you are known as the “pretty woman”. I am strong and opinionated. You know—in Spain actresses work until they are old. That’s my plan.”

Jamie Russell of BBC.COM wrote,” OJOS is one of the most thought-provoking thrillers of recent years—a film that really does challenge an audience’s expectations and suppositions at every turn. Amenabar’s stunning movie is a labyrinthine puzzler that keeps you guessing right up to the last minute. It is playful, frustrating, and very clever—and you are unlikely to forget it.”

Dan Jardine of THE APOLLO GUIDE wrote,” The film’s final reel takes us into an artificial construction that attempts to tie the story’s threads together a bit too neatly—and the conclusion is unnecessarily otherworldly. ABRE LOS OJOS stands out as an intriguing counterpoint to the more intellectually profound but stylistically muted work of Dogme 95 pioneer Lars Von Trier.”

Najwa Nimri played Nuria—the jealous paramour that Cesar was “mistreating”. Nimri with Nuria mined the same ground as Glenn Close had in FATAL ATTRACTION (1987). Her character was very sexual, but also emotionally fragile, insecure, confused, and prone to vindictiveness. Her transition, as an actress, from the first part of the film, to those scenes at the end—where she professed her actual love for Cesar—were touching and heartbreaking. She is a very good actress, and I was sad that Cesar, in the throes of his intense pain and conflict, had to smother her with a pillow they had just made love on. When Cameron Diaz had to face a similar pillow in VANILLA SKY—her passing was easier for me to stomach. Nimri has appeared in 18 films since 1995. OJOS was her 4th film. I enjoyed her as Ana in THE LOVERS OF THE ARTIC CIRCLE (1998). She, also, is a composer and singer in the pop group, NAJWAJEA. She has released two solo albums—CAREFULLY (2001), and MAYDAY (2003).

Fele Martinez played Pelayo—Cesar’s “best friend”. He and Noriega are both very popular poster boys in Spain . His Pelayo seemed steadfast, envious, manipulative, angry, and honorable. When Cesar “stole” Sofia from him—even though at Cesar’s party Pelayo claimed that he had just met her “at the library”—it really constituted a breech of trust—the last straw. Yet after the car crash and Cesar’s disfigurement, Pelayo remained fairly loyal to him as a friend—depending on which presented scenario you chose to believe. Martinez has appeared in 25 films since 1990. His first feature film was TESIS (1996)—working with both Amenabar and Noriega. OJOS was his 4th film. Most of his film work has been done in Europe—primarily Spain and Italy . He hasn’t appeared in any American films.

I was very impressed with Chete Lara who played Antonio, the psychiatrist. His screen presence was reminiscent of Giancarlo Giannini back in the 70’s. His Antonio became doctor, father, confidant, counselor, detective, and friend. His portrayal was very believable—just as his character “believed” that he actually existed and had two daughters. In the film’s final scene—when he was confronted with his non-reality by Gerard Barray as the Lucid Dream Master—Antonio refused to believe in his own fabrication. This kept the audience guessing. So when he was unable to recall, to even know the names of his two “daughters”—a thousand pounds of resignation pushed him to the ground as he sat stunned, sullen, and shocked. Lara has appeared in 42 films since 1991. OJOS was his 9th film. All of his film work seems to have been done in Spain .

In DON QUIXOTE, Cervantes wrote,” Facts get in the way of the truth”. In this film we are teased with a multiplicity of scenarios suggesting several plot threads. It seemed to reconnect me with my metaphysical studies—where I discovered that many Eastern philosophies believe in the validity of dreams. Native American shaman also put great store in what they call “dream time” and visions. Many believe that we “exist” in a dimension that is co-habited by several parallel dimensions—that bend and overlap—so that crossovers—spirits, specters, ghosts, and strange creatures are “real”. When we sleep in this plane of existence—that is when we have our only real opportunity to travel out-of-body, to fly, to transcend, to play multiple roles, and to visit those cities in the sky, up and out there just north of the veil. So much relative to human perception lies in the shadow realm of mystery and the non-empirical. The fact that no two human beings can rarely agree on a film that they both have viewed and processed through their individual perceptions—colored by their particular life experience, recall, and cognizant focus—makes film club meetings hotbeds of diverse antithesis.

James Berardinelli of REEL VIEWS wrote further,” One could easily view ABRE LOS OJOS as a study in dualities—nightmares vs. reality—memories of the past vs. actions in the present—knowledge vs. ignorance—beauty vs. ugliness—madness vs. sanity—[as well as love vs. lust—guilt vs. acceptance—truth vs. lies—passion vs. violence—envy vs. disdain—and immortality vs. transition]—and all of these elements come into play as we try to piece together what is happening to Cesar.

Fundamentally, OJOS is concerned with one issue—the vast gulf between perception and reality [and, of course, exploring the notion that all “reality” is only a pale form of a person’s individualized “perceptions”]. When Cesar is handsome on the outside—he is rotten within. But the humiliation of losing his physical beauty changes him—and circumstances are reversed. [Or are they? Does Cesar redeem himself with Pelayo and Nuria? Was there actually an honest and compassionate heart beating beneath the torn flesh and scar tissue?] Yet, even at the point where we have only begun to scratch the complexity of this issue—Amenabar forces us to go much deeper.”

Per usual—not all of the critics were entirely sold on, or enchanted by this perplexing film. Jason Anderson of EYE WEEKLY wrote,” ABRE LOS OJOS is a melodramatic thriller that takes a detour into Freakville. It is an enjoyable mildly-exotic film—aimed at adolescent males. The feeble attempt to construct a line of philosophical inquiry is fit only to be included in a PHENOMENOLOGY FOR DUMMIES textbook. Nevertheless—when the conceptual rug is pulled out from under the audience—and the whacky camera angles start coming fast and hard—the film pays off with some intriguing science fiction themes.”

Peter Stark of the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE wrote,” This thriller goes from eye-opening to eye-glazing—as the absurd plot sinks a promising story. Sexy, intriguing, but ultimately bewildering—the new Spanish film ABRE LOS OJOS could have been a pleasure. But the cumbersome fantastical plot twists during its last 40 minutes—render the whole thing unfathomable.”

Sorry about that, Peter—but I have to take serious issue with your critique. ABRE LOS OJOS is a monumental achievement. Far from unfathomable—rather it approaches indefinable. It simply and cleanly eludes our efforts to buttonhole it—to categorize it. For me it was a powerful Drama—complete with all the elements needed to create conflict, and then beg for closure. Some might find its circumstances—real and imagined—mostly melodramatic—but I think its passion and pain appeared entirely valid—and not at all histrionic. It is a Romance film—digging deep into the myth of individual freedom and sexual escapades—though I don’t think it ever became a full-fledged “chick flick”. Even Sofia , as a character, was not treated fairly by Cesar—in any of her incarnations. The film, in parts, comes off as a twenty-something upper class wet dream—flirting with soft core porn shots. But still—midst the painful and pitiful abandonment of Nuria—and the deification of Sofia as Madonna, earth mother, as the wellspring of purity and womanhood—we still visit those difficult themes of defining love and human interaction—the strength and weaknesses of relationships. Now the psychological premises that it postulates may not be “good science”—but as merely a filmatic function of plot—it served the several overlapping scenarios quite well. It might have been, and seemed to be a Crime thriller—as if through flashbacks and flash-forwards we inhabited the fevered mind of a psychotic murderer—who has firmly repressed the hardcore memory of his possible transgression. And it certainly is a film of Science Fiction—of perceptual dimensional shift—slapping around the bitch that is Time in a blast of DONNIE DARKO quasi-logic. It is also a sharp Satire—ringing the alarm—sounding the warning regarding the fascination with, the implications of, and the hidden dangers of technology in the future.

In short, ABRE LOS OJOS is a masterwork created by a young filmmaker who has completely raised the bar on sophomore creativity. It was only his second film, and not a moment of it, or any twist within it—needs to be tampered with. In its own bizarre, quiet, and even confusing way—this film—in specific terms of its merit and place in film history—is approaching the significance of watching CITIZEN KANE for the first time—the prodigy and presentation created by the very young Orson Welles. I know dissenters will be legion—and hordes will want to take me to task for even implying this—but OJOS has mostly been unseen—and it was poorly distributed in this country. If it had not been for Cameron Crowe’s American remake, VANILLA SKY—few of us would have sought it out. Many fine classic films, like one of Kirk Douglas’s personal favorites—LONELY ARE THE BRAVE (1962), written by Dalton Trumbo—have passed into antiquity mostly unseen, poorly distributed, and somewhat unappreciated.

By seeking out OJOS we are cinematically blessed. What a treasure trove we have unearthed and brought back into the consciousness of the world. This film is a colossal achievement from a very talented maverick young director—like Robert Rodriguez—who found his own way, disregarding the staid framework, scholarship, internship, and certification offered by and required from the teachers and trainers of Cinema—the established powers that be. They failed him—flunked him out—wrote him off. I dearly hope that any of them who can be honest with themselves—are genuinely ashamed of their lack of faith and vision. It reminds me of when Brian De Palma dropped out as director of WALL STREET , because he felt that Michael Douglas was not a “sensitive” enough actor. I need to reach back now and view his freshman film, TESIS. With OJOS, I was extremely pleased that Alejandro Amenabar found fresh ways to entertain and intrigue me. I would rate this film at 4.5 stars.

P A R T II: V A N I L L A S K Y

T H E C L O N I N G O F C E S A R

I found out that Tom Cruise, in order to insure Alejandro Amenabar’s participation in VANILLA SKY—he had to offer him THE OTHERS—another property his production company had the rights to—starring the A-list actress Nicole Kidman—who just happened to be Cruise’s soon to be ex-wife. That, of course, was before the entrance of the enchantress—Penelope Cruz. When I watched THE OTHERS (2001)—like most people, I really did not know, or appreciate, who Amenabar was.

I submit, in this day of the DVD—if one screens ABRE LOS OJOS (1997) first—and then immediately watches VANILLA SKY (2001)—you begin to appreciate the craftsmanship and hard work that director Cameron Crowe brought to it. Actually collaborating with Amenabar on the script—they seemed to decide that SKY to answer, or in some palatable way address those questions raised by OJOS. OPEN YOUR EYES had a running time of 117 minutes. VANILLA SKY ran 136 minutes. That 19 minutes endeavored to fully flesh out some of the only implied particles of plot intact in OJOS.

Watching SKY this time, I noticed that during the opening scene, as Tom Cruise, playing David Ames—was discovered lying face down in his rumpled bachelor’s bed—alone—that he was awakened by a recorded voice on his clock/alarm radio—and that voice was actually that of Penelpe Cruz saying very softly in Spanish, “Abre los ojos.” This was a nice tipping of the celluloid top hat from Crowe to Amenabar—and most people didn’t notice it. In that first scene, Cruise dressed quickly and left his plush apartment—and in the garage, climbed into his car—which just happened to be a sleek black 1968 Ferrari—with the yellow stallion emblem emblazoned clearly on the driver’s door. Pulling out, he noticed quickly that there was no traffic. Pulling into an empty Times Square—identifying the world of the film as NYC, he stopped the car—and sprinted down the middle of the street completely alone; until out of breath he stopped and swung his arms open, embracing the bizarreness—only to awaken—again. Crowe actually got permission to close down Times Square on a Sunday morning. This must have taken a great white bite out of the budget. Real film buffs have noted that if one repeatedly views this movie, you will notice references to the Bush-Gore campaign—and several Crowe tributes to rock and roll on the many billboards and video signs.

In OJOS, Noriega as Cesar, was driving a yellow VW convertible, and he stopped on the emptiness of the Gran Via in Madrid . One piece of trivia—in the beginning of the shot, as Noriega began his sprint—if one looks closely there is a person standing on a balcony on the right hand side of the screen. I pointed this out to David Gilmour and Ron Booth as was watched it. So scene II commenced—and Cesar/David reawakens—in the identical position as before. “Open your eyes,” chirped Cameron Diaz’s voice, as Julie Giannini, on the alarm recording. “Abre los ojos” chirped Najwa Nimri’s voice as Nuria. Cesar/David rises and we suddenly notice a woman companion is now in his bed. It is Julie/Nuria. She is scolded for putting a message on his alarm. Nuria’s scene is brief, and Cesar left. Julie’s scene is extended. We find that she has a cold, as does David. Real or Memorex—did either star really have one?

Julie: When will we see each other again?
David: Sometime.
Julie: Don’t ever say that word—or I will never come over and bring you chicken soup and fuck your brains out again.

David exits and climbs into his garaged vehicle—but this time it morphs into a sleek black muscled 1968 fast back Mustang—showing us for the first time that perceptions would shift regularly. But a sharp eye revealed a sticker on the Mustang’s windshield that read 2/30/01. Crowe claimed that it was an accident—but once noticed it certainly does color one’s interpretation of the story. At that same point in OJOS, Cesar got back into his yellow VW convertible—and the scene took on properties of deju vu—an exact copy of the proceeding one—saving, savoring, or deepening the mystery.

David: [As narrative] My dreams are a cruel joke. They taunt me. Even in my dreams I’m still an idiot—who knows he is about to wake up to reality. If only I could avoid sleep. But I can’t. I try to tell myself what to dream. I try to dream that I am flying—something free. It never works.

In the next scene, Cesar/David makes a stop to pick up his good friend Pelayo/Brian Shelby—played by Jason Lee in SKY.

Pelayo: With all the great cars that you own—why do you always drive this piece of shit VW?

Per usual, the scene is extended in SKY, letting Brian establish his state of envy regarding David’s new “fuck buddy”. Cesar made several references to “the Board” of his inherited father’s company—but we really never meet them. It is suggested that they are actively conspiring against him—trying to convince him and others that he is mad so that they could wrest controlling interest from him—and push him out of the picture—leaving him alone in some mental hospital or prison. But in SKY—Crowe had David actually have a scene at the office, and we meet the Board of Directors—whom he had dubbed “The Seven Dwarves”. A new character is inserted in the plot—a family lawyer, Thomas Tipp—played very convincingly by Timothy Spall.

Thomas Tipp: Do you know they even got a—well a nickname for you behind your back? Heh? Citizen Dildo.

In SKY we discover that the father’s very successful company is a Publishing House.

David: [Of his father] He never watched television, and yet his biggest magazine is still the TV Digest.

In both films—when we shift our focus to the mental ward or prison, we hear David’s voice-over muttering confusing references to his innocence and a “murder”. Then we attend the “party scene” at Cesar/David’s penthouse apartment. In OJOS—it just seems to be another “party”—albeit his birthday—only attended by his young friends and hangers-on. In SKY we are told that it is David’s birthday party—and it is supposed to be September 22, 1968. We get to re-meet the Board, and their wives. We see more of David’s paintings and collectables. He is approached by an inebriated lawyer Tipp.

Tipp: But I say this with complete love. Claim your life. Learn to be an asshole. Don’t—
David: Two’s enough.
Tipp: Forgive me. But I still believe in this family, David—even if it’s only you.

Then, of course, there is the grand entrance—in both films—of Sofia/Sofia—squired by Pelayo/Brian. Tom Cruise flashed that trademark smile of his—and he zeroed in on the new arrivals. In contrast—Eduardo Noriega simply registered selfish lust in his eyes—as he made his move—more sexual predator than smooth operator. Certainly, Penelope Cruz portrays a much more interesting Sofia while speaking her own language. Imagine that.

David: And what do I owe this pleasure?
Sofia: The pleasure of Sofia Serrano.

Soon Cesar notices Nuria, and David notices Julie—both of them lurking
and leering—staring dark laser beams into Sofia ’s forehead.

David: See—I’ve this little problem. I’ve got a stalker.
Sofia: It doesn’t sound life-threatening.
David: But I need a cover. I need for you to pretend we’re having a scintillating conversation—and you are wildly entertained.
[Both laugh]
Sofia: I’ll improvise. [Looking at Julie] I think that she is the saddest girl to ever hold a martini.

Then in SKY—David gave Sofia a guided tour of his fabulous apartment. At one point a guest in a bomber jacket and ball cap said, “Hi!” The ball cap was a PRE-CRIME cap from MINORITY REPORT. The guest was Steven Spielberg. He and Cruise were already beginning to make plans to film MINORITY REPORT at the time. Crowe and Cruise both tried to persuade legendary director Billy Wilder to make an appearance in the film—but he declined. The large portrait of David’s father, seen covering a whole wall at the party—was actually a portrait of contemporary artist—Robert Raushenberg. When David showed Sofia the electric guitar in the glass case, he said,” Danny Bramson gave it to me for my birthday last year.” Danny Bramson was the musical supervisor for SKY. In David’s bedroom, there were several shots of a movie one-sheet poster for Trauffaut’s JULES ET JIM (1961)—which is a film in which the climactic scene involves the female star (Jeanne Moreau) driving a car, with her and her lover in it—off a bridge.

David: Doc—once you’ve been driven off a bridge at 80 miles per hour—somehow you don’t invite happiness in—without a full body search.

Soon Cesar/David is able to lure Sofia away from the party, and he began to flirt with her. But after a short time, Pelayo/Brian burst into the room. In both films—he was shown drinking a lot—pouting and imbibing. In SKY—Brian was actually shown taking animatedly with Julie.

Brian: You will never know the exquisite pain of the guy, who goes home alone. You’re rich and women love you—and I’m from Ohio and I’m drunk. Can I tell you the truth?
David: Everybody does.
Brian: I dig her ( Sofia )—and I’ve never said this to you before about any girl. But she could be, could be, could be—could be the girl of my fucking dreams.
David: You’re not from Ohio .
Brian: I know.
David: You’re not blind. You’re drinking Jack Daniels—and when you drink Jack—you start in with that—Frank Sinatra, she shot me down, give me a cigarette, “King of Sad” thing.
Brian: That I do. Give me a cigarette.

In the several scenes with the doctor—the shrink, Antonio/McCabe—we are tempted to believe that they are “reality”—and everything else is fantasy and nightmare. Kurt Russell, ably portraying McCabe—was given more dialogue—and an opportunity to establish himself as a decent, and certainly “real” character. Russell, it was reported, agreed to do the film without reading the script. I don’t know if he had been aware of, or had seen OJOS. Russell wore his hair longish, and the small steel rimmed John Lennon glasses that paralleled Lera’s Antonio. In SKY—we were given a peek out of prison/hospital window and we saw dozens of other prisoners milling around in the exercise yard. In OJOS, we only get the interior scenes—and as such there was a more surreal and claustrophobic feel to them. Both films had a bully guard that ragged on Cesar/David.

In both films—after it was revealed that Eli, whom the protagonist had mentioned in his sleep—was actually E.L.I.—the cryogenics corporation—the doctor and patient, very unrealistically—were transported to the facility. Cesar/David had been having flashbacks of the hallway, the receptionist, the office—and there was a faint memory of some kind of contract he signed. At the inner office, in OJOS—we only meet Duvernois—the unknown “senor” on all those TV ads and promos that were flashed and shared in several scenes. But in SKY—we had the treat of meeting two characters representing the rep, or CEO—Noah Taylor as Edmund Ventura and the wonderful Tilda Swinton [ ORLANDO (1992)] played spokesperson Rebecca Dearborn. In both films the inquiring pair was handed some double talk and they were sent packing.

Rebecca: This is a revolution of the mind. Most of us live our whole lives—without any real adventure to call our own. What is life without the pursuit of a dream?

In the bar scene, where our protagonist is approached by the ELI rep—it is Duvernois in OJOS and Edmund Ventura in SKY. At this point in both films Cesar/David is beginning to suspect the truth.

David: These? These are more than headaches. These are steel plates slicing through my every thought. I want to live a real life. I don’t want to dream any longer. I wanna wake up! Tech support! It’s a nightmare! Tech support! Tech support!

Edmund: It is a brilliant journey of self-awakening. And now you’ve simply got to ask yourself this—what is happiness to you, David?

In the climactic final scene on the rooftop of that skyscraper—Cesar and Antonio meet Duvernois together in OJOS. David, in SKY, meets Edmund solo—and then “wills” McCabe to appear. I did enjoy many clever lines of dialogue in SKY that were not included in OJOS. Lines such as:

David: I’m frozen—you’re dead—and I love you.
And
Sofia: I’ll tell you in another life when we are both cats. Every passing minute is another chance to turn it all around.
And
Julie: We made love four times last night—that means something, David. Don’t you know that when you sleep with someone—your body makes a promise whether you do or not?
And
Sofia: Do you love me? I mean really love me. Because if you don’t—I’ll have to kill you.

Comparing ABRE LOS OJOS with VANILLA SKY was like comparing the classic Wim Wender’s film WINGS OF DESIRE (1987)—with its lovely American remake, CITY OF ANGELS (1998). The remake was quite good—but the original was much better.

Glenn Buttkus 2005