I watched Sleepaway Camp recently. If you've seen it, you might have noticed everybody seems to be angry for no reason in particular. The reason is the manufactured mystery of it: If everyone is angry, then anyone can be the killer. The problem is that, since the characters are acting out of necessity for the plot (and not the other way around), none of it really makes sense and we lose investment in the characters. In his 1986 review for Something Wild, Roger Ebert describes these opening scenes as seeming " Demme closes his eyes and steps on the gas." It's because the story plays as though no one, not even the filmmakers, have control over where this story is going. The car is being driven entirely by the characters on screen. The piping for the drama in Something Wild has been laid with the details and the twists and turns of the stories are provided by their quirks, needs, desires, and obligations. Charles Driggs feels the need and obligation of returning to his office after lunch but is compelled by his desire for Lulu (especially considering his marital status, something I will leave vague as to not spoil anything). Ultimately, this is a story of opposites attract. The question of whether or not Charles will flee seems to last right up to the midpoint, regardless of how deep he gets. When Ray gets introduced, their new found love is challenged by the skeletons in Audrey/Lulu's past. What makes this drama much more engaging is that it gives each character something to want and yearn for; it provides a motivation for their actions that is organic to the characters themselves and therefore more believable.