What Lies Beneath (2000) tells the chilling story of a woman who becomes the recipient of paranormal contact from whom she believes to be her next-door neighbor. When Claire Spencer, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, comes under a string of strange happenings that she believes to be the result of the murder of her neighbor, Mary Feur, she attempts to contact the woman’s spirit. What she discovers turns out to be a web of lies, cheating, and deception radiating from much closer — her own home.
Without giving too much away, I’d like to try and understand a few things about this film that I have yet to find answers to. I may be 18 years late, but regardless of time, this captivating film still maintains its suspense, thrill, and mystery which, after rewatching it last night, has driven me to ask some questions.
We’ll start with perhaps my most critical piece of missing information– what was the real purpose of Claire “seeing” the domestic disputes and suspected murder of Mary Feur? I assume that this was meant to be some manifestation of Claire’s own life with her husband, Norman Spencer. Although not entirely identical to Claire’s situation, Mary initially claimed to be very afraid of her husband, Warren Feur, and similarly to Claire, being the spouse of a very influential professor/researcher, Mary was forced to live a silent lie to keep her and her husband’s secret life quiet. I believe this was smoke in mirrors for Claire, merely acting as a convincing explanation for Claire’s unusual experiences. The question that remains unanswered is whether this was a projection of her fuzzy memories, ultimately helping her remember her truth and uncover hidden lies, or if this was a coincidental, intricately placed initial explanation for Claire’s haunting?
Another piece of information that slips my understanding is (SPOILER ALERT) what caused Claire’s car accident. The film paints a foggy picture of the circumstances surrounding Claire’s car accident, which happened a year before the current-day story. The apparent assumption – Norman somehow caused Claire to crash in the hopes that it would eliminate any memories she had regarding Norman and his past infidelities; but how did the accident happen? It’s never really been determined whether or not the crash was intentional or entirely accidental, but based on Norman’s ability to set-up and stage other sneaky, deceitful plots, assuming this was intentional isn’t too far-fetched. Did he rig the car? Did he spike a drink of Claire’s before she got behind the wheel? What was the plan behind the betrayal? Perhaps this isn’t crucial information for the story, but it sure would have been interesting to know, only further adding to the thrill.
The last missing piece of the puzzle that is this film is the very extent of Claire’s memory loss. I was left wondering if this was Claire’s first time remembering the events of her past and how other occurrences of nearly uncovering her truth could have affected her before solving Norman’s mystery and how it could affect her after. Claire began remembering the events of her past by looking at an old photo album. What are the chances that this had happened once already in the past year or so? If this had happened, why hadn’t this kickstarted Claire’s investigation sooner? If it did jog her memory before, what ceased the uncovering of the truth until now?
Another thing that struck me as odd was the selectiveness of Claire’s memory loss. How she managed to only become fuzzy on Norman’s infidelities, but not anything else that’d happened the year before, was very convenient. Clearly, she could remember events, things, and clients she’d met last year, so why is it that she could not recall the events of the accident and what led up to it? Talk about plot holes.
There are plenty of other questions that could be asked to solve smaller mysteries within the storyline– such as why the article regarding the missing girl was taped to the back of the DuPont photo, why the key to Madison’s “Sleeping Dog” lockbox was in the floor vent, why Norman pretended to electrocute himself, and what “voices” Claire claimed to have been hearing throughout the beginning of the film. Ultimately, the above three questions are the greatest to be answered, as they would help clarify big plot points throughout the film.
Regardless of what it may be missing, What Lies Beneath remains one of my favorite thrillers– one I will continue to enjoy on eerie, rainy nights. Even with missing information, it manages to maintain its chilling nature and ultimately allows viewers to draw some conclusions of their own – a fantastic tool of mystery, as long as it does not leave gaps in the story’s purpose.
If you have not managed to check this film out in the 18 years it’s been available, I strongly recommend you give it a go for a more original take on the dead-contacting-the-living mystery!
Photo courtesy of Amazon.com
