The Jacket

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections

Sometimes a movie doesn’t explain itself because the mystery of not knowing is more enticing than the explanation. At other times, however, I suspect a film doesn’t explain itself because the people who made it don’t really know how it works, and they’re hoping against hope you simply enjoy the film but don’t think about it too hard. The Jacket definitely falls into this second category. The premise is intriguing, but the film as a whole has the load bearing potential of a house of cards.

I realize it’s too late to make any changes to this film, but I would like to respond to it with some notes I would have written on the script if I had the chance to read it prior to shooting:

The set-up: Cool laser-guided missile shots to open the film, guys, but how do these help to set up the film’s visual language? And what on earth do they have to do with the story? This is a psychological thriller, not a Bruce Willis shoot-em-up. You would be far wiser to start the film with a shot of Starks walking down the road alone. That would do a better job of setting him up as a loner/victim, at least from a visual point of view. We can get into the cause of his amnesia later on, if you insist. But do we really need to? I don’t think so, seeing as his Iraq experience never factors into the story.

The premise: Top marks here, guys. What could be more horrifying than being convicted of a murder you did not commit, declared criminally insane, doped up, strapped into a straightjacket, and then shoved into a morgue drawer where you begin to hallucinate about your impending death? This creates the potential for a good time-twisting, whodunit plot, similar to Memento. But watch out, guys: Pulling off a story like this without creating some gaping holes is nigh unto impossible. Just ask the guys who wrote The Butterfly Effect.

Time travel: This is where things begin to break down. First, you called the movie The Jacket, which made me think we were going to discover that this straightjacket had some sort of mysterious quality that allowed Starks to travel through time. However, I think a better title would have been The Drawer, because that is where all the action goes down. The straightjacket is merely a prop. But this title still doesn’t even begin to address the glaring problem of the film, which is: Why would a straightjacket, drugs, and a morgue drawer allow someone to time travel? You don’t even hint at an explanation. How about saying the doctor was testing a mysterious new psychotropic drug? How about creating a legend about a spell that came over the morgue drawer after some criminally insane person was stored in it? How about if every time Starks went into the drawer, he died, and his soul was allowed to wander the earth? How about something?

The visuals: You score much better in this area. All those close-up shots of Starks blinking (along with the wet slapping sound made by his eyelids) will be cool—but be careful not to overdo it. I also like the way you handle the transitions into his visions of the future. One question though: Why are you calling for all those close-ups of the actors’ teeth? Creating an innovative visual style is important, but it must have meaning. Some of these things feel completely random. If this film is about claustrophobia, keep things tight and stuffy throughout, not just once in a while. And contrast these images with wide-open spaces a bit more—as you do in the graveyard scene—just so we can catch our breath.

The love story: As far as I can see, absolutely nothing happens in this story to make Starks and Jackie suddenly fall in love with each other. One gets the sense that it just happens because that is what is supposed to happen at this point in the film. I don’t buy into this relationship at all. In addition, when Jackie suddenly becomes so knowledgeable and aggressive regarding Starks’ death, it seemed like someone had merely done a rewrite to give Keira Knightley’s role a bit more substance. Up to this point she has been a depressive alcoholic. Where did she suddenly discover so much gumption?

The characters: I definitely agree with your choice of Adrian Brody as Starks. He has the emotional depth to make this film believable even though the content borders on preposterous. Kristopherson will probably make a good Dr. Becker as well, but I feel you could add a lot more depth to his role. Through his drinking, we can see that he is conflicted, but why? What brought him to this point in life? You hint at it, but give us a little more. I’ve already told you what I think of Jackie. Dr. Lorenson is also too passive for my liking. She knows something is going on downstairs, but she never does anything about it. Why?

The theme: This is perhaps the strongest element of the film. Strangely enough, it sounds like something you would hear at an old-fashioned tent revival meeting: Death can arrive when we least expect it, but we live like we have all the time in the world. Jack Starks knows better though. So the question becomes, what will he do with the time he has left? Rather than panic and try to avert his death, as most characters in his situation would do, he seeks to infuse his death with meaning instead. Starks doesn’t struggle with denial, and that frees him to act out of his deepest convictions without regard for the consequences. Little does he realize though that his selfless actions are exactly what lead up to his death. It’s almost ironic: Only by losing his life does he actually find it. Reminds me of something I read in the Bible once…

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections