Question Scream Writers: What do Shutter Island (2010), Memento (2000), and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) all have in common?
Answer: Each of these films make good use of an “Unreliable Narrator.” That is, each of these films have derived their plot through the vantage point of a character that either does not or can not see empirical reality; as such, stories with an unreliable narrator often disguise the unreliability of the narrator until the final moments of the film.
With the typical unreliable narrator, the key to success is in the disguising of the narrator’s lies/untruths. This disguising is of such importance that if a film telegraphs its deceit too openly, or causes doubt too early, if it falls into predictability, the audience may turn on the film. This audience reaction to the tool of the unreliable narrator is specifically played with by Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi in The Invitation (2015). Through the use of a restricted point of view, and an understanding of the audience’s filmic experiences with the unreliable narrator, The Invitation predicts and destabilizes the audience’s attempts to “out think” the movie.
The Invitation is about a reunion, a fancy dinner party thrown to get the old gang back together again. While it the story takes it slow with revelations of backstory spaced out and hinted at, the film immediately sets a dark and disturbing tone. As we come to find out, the party is held in the house that Will, our protagonist and viewpoint character, and his ex-wife shared until the family tragedy that split them apart. In fact, the house helps to reinforce that we are within Will – the first scene of the film (which I touched on briefly here) is a vague image, not fully a memory, which requires Will to be shaken out of. It is unclear as to what the image means, at this point, just as it’s unclear if it was Will’s image, though it is certainly implied. It is through how the history of the house is experienced as flashbacks, not just to the viewing audience but to Will himself, that we are told, undoubtably, that our vantage point is Will’s vantage point.
This restricted view point serves not only to further the slight of hand that Hay and Manfredi have prepared, but also to bring us into the emotional and mental world of the main character. We naturally assume that the situation seems too weird, our character’s suspicions too inline with the audience’s, and thus this must be an unreliable narrator we are with. The fact that we are kept within the character’s perspective, a perspective that reflects his withdrawn, struggling mentality, creates a feeling of awkwardness for us; the tension arising in the story is not the tension of the situation we are seeing but the tension of the misunderstanding of the situation as seen through Will’s eyes.
This misunderstanding, as those that have seen the film know, turns out to be the reality of the situation that Will and his friends have found themselves in. The moment of revelation first appears to confirm the misunderstanding: Will, having ruined a toast by slapping wine glasses out of peoples hands, angers one member of the party who then attacks him. Will pushes off his assailant, knocking them unconscious – though we, like the characters, worry that in fact Will’s mental instability have lead to a death. Then we are given this powerful moment:
In the film, like in the script, this moment hits like a sledgehammer – we are unprepared for the level of violence the third act spirals into. However, in the original screenplay, there is an earlier scene that dilutes the impact of this moment. It is the first scene within the script that specifically breaks from Will’s perspective. In the moments just before the reveal, we are shown this:
Not only does this moment stand out because of its absence within Karyn Kusama’s film but it is a jarring moment because it opens up our restricted point of view. While very well written, this moment shatters the reveal that comes in the very next scene. It shows us that Will’s perspective has always been correct and, in doing so, it saps a lot of the tension from the confrontation over the wine.
The Invitation demonstrates that the telegraphing of one twist can be hidden within the blatant telegraphing of a different – false – twist. By restricting our viewpoint, and, even more importantly, making the audience aware of that restriction, The Invitation is able to hide it’s twist in plain sight and still shock audiences.
