Nolan | Asian and Entertained

WWII 2017, part one: “Dunkirk”

Posted on February 27, 2018 by babemoby

You know what the world needs? Another World War II movie!

Christopher Nolan has taken his audiences to Gotham, to space, even to the dreamworld of the inner mind, and last year, it was his turn to take viewers back to the 1940s, to the Great War, as Americans like to refer to it.

Thankfully, at least this one comes from a non-American perspective for once. The title of the movie, “Dunkirk,” refers to the French town of “Dunkerque,” which was the site of one of the war’s early key battles. The British invasion (not the one with the Beatles) into France occupied by the vaunted forces of Germany had failed, and so it was time to go home.

The movie follows multiple Brits as they all try to survive long enough for transport ships to come and pick up the troops. “Survive” is the key word there, as Nolan frames his war movie as a thriller, approaching horror, in which the characters are simply trying to survive.

That’s the major difference between this and the war epics Hollywood churns out, and it doubles as a reflection of the U.K.’s perspective on the war as opposed to the U.S.’s. Whereas the stars of American war films somehow find the time amid the relentless action to pontificate on bravery, sacrifice, the meaning of life, etc., “Dunkirk” has a minimalist script, and its characters are simply working for their own survival and, by extension, for their nation’s survival. This battle was a matter of survival for Britain too, as the bulk of their military had been invested in the invasion, and the failure to bring 400,000 troops home could have potentially led to not-so-jolly ol’ Nazi England. Contrast this with the tales of glory, bravery and proud victory the U.S. lauds upon its soldiers, its military and its wars.

As the movie follows multiple characters, there’s no real lead, though army soldier Tommy (Fionn Wolfhard) is the one who has basically decided his entire goal is to make it home. The film also focuses on a pair of fighter pilots patrolling the sky trying to keep the beaches safe (Tom Hardy and Jack Lowdon), Commander Bolton (Kenneth Branagh), and a civilian boat captain (Mark Rylance).

Tommy’s just done with this shit, and who can blame him.

It has been noted that this is the first war movie to cover all three phases of war: land, air and sea. It is interesting to watch Nolan juggle these three perspectives and show how each supports the others, especially in the way he covers multiple angles of a sole event.

Now, this is Christopher Nolan, who is known for inserting major and sometimes bizarre twists into his plots. But, no, it doesn’t turn out that Adolf Hitler had a secret twin brother who infiltrated the British military and escapes to the U.S. at the end, where he’s welcomed with open arms by FDR himself or anything weird like that. In terms of telling a historical story, Nolan plays it straight this time.

But Nolan is never one to just make a simple straightforward movie, and he innovates here by telling hi story in a fairly non-linear fashion. The viewer will see the results of an event from one character’s perspective before actually witnessing the event from another character’s perspective. It can be a bit disorienting and confusing, at least on the first watch-through, and it might be more rewarding to see the film more than once (like any Nolan movie) to figure out where those puzzle pieces fit.

As the narrative jumps around, it doesn’t stick with any one character for too long before switching perspectives, and it’s fair criticism to say that the movie doesn’t do enough to build its characters. But, by the same token, that is a reminder that a soldier is just a soldier, just another common, ordinary human trying to make it, and not some superhero — or Tom Hanks — whom the audience is expected to swoon over.

Perhaps the most endearing character, however, is Rylance’s Mr. Dawson, an older, but not elderly, civilian yacht captain, who is simply trying to do whatever little he can to help England. He’s aware that he has nothing to offer in the way of destroying the enemy forces, yet he has the drive and hubris to aid the war effort in any way he is able. Cillian Murphy’s downed fighter pilot who had been rescued by Dawson tries to convince him to turn away from the fighting and go back home to England because he’d personally had enough of the hellish chaos. But Dawson replies, “Well, there won’t be any home if we allow a slaughter across the Channel.”

If there is a heart to this movie, it’s found in Mr. Dawson.

Nolan obviously set out to create a very intense movie, and even in slower moments, he ratchets up the tension, through the soundtrack and through unnerving images, like the huge lines of soldiers waiting for rescue on the beach. It always feels like something bad is about to happen, and, thus, something bad frequently happens. It’s not that the troops are caught unaware, but they are always vulnerable. The Germans constantly apply immense pressure on the Brits, and the British soldiers have no way to retaliate or defend themselves. They are almost always sitting — sometimes standing — ducks, whose only hope is that someone else comes through for them. Nolan alternates scenes of horrors like naval crew desperately abandoning a sinking ship next to a scene like a bunch of soldiers boarding a rescue boat, where they are taken down into the hold and given bread and jam. Even in an environment where something as small as bread and jam seem like a luxury, it almost assuredly serves as false comfort and a mere distraction from the terrors that lay ahead.

As the director put all his efforts here into making war look like hell, could it be that he was trying to make a statement about the nature of war? The notion that “war is hell” is not exactly an new approach for movies about war, as enough war movies from “Apocalypse Now” to “Saving Private Ryan” make the audience feel as if they’re passing through Dante’s Seventh Circle or a Hieronymus Bosch painting. “Ryan,” considered possibly the greatest war movie of all-time, goes on to set aside its damning of war once it gets past Normandy Beach, going on to resemble everything a middle-school boy dreams of when he watches “GI Joe.” Other war movies like “Apocalypse Now” or “Full Metal Jacket” or “Platoon” are heavily introspective on the inherent evil of mankind and shit like that, comtemplating on the soldiers’ emotions and inner turmoil. More recent movies like “American Sniper” are little more than pro-war, often anti-Muslim propaganda. It’s a departure to follow the characters of “Dunkirk,” who are simply wide-eyed kids who just want to go home.

But the U.S. and European countries have such disparate viewpoints on this war. For the British (and the French), the war effort was a matter of fighting for existence against the onslaught of the relentless and brutal German war machine. Those countries are all right next to each other, being far across the pond from the U.S. Germany did conquer France, and they were on the doorstep of Britain, which was on the brink of being conquered as well. For these soldiers, to lose potentially meant the annihilation of their country.

On the other hand, other than Pearl Harbor, the U.S. has never had to deal with any invasion or even any threat of invasion from any other conquering regime. The biggest wars on American soil were the Revolutionary War, which — from a purely objective standpoint — the U.S. started, and the Civil War, which was entirely self-inflicted, and those both happened hundreds of years ago, far beyond the memory of anyone living. The U.S. was provoked into WWII by Japan’s attack, but although the prospect of interjecting itself into the German side of things had some immediacy to it, that effort was still on the other side of the ocean, distant from the American homeland. All that said, it’s a little bit ridiculous how much the U.S. idolizes war and only considers the sacrifice of its human soldiers as a marketing tool to get more people to join the military.

So, it is refreshing to see another nation’s perspective on WWII, one that is not so gung-ho about war. You couldn’t show this movie to prospective soldiers and expect them to want to join up because retreating doesn’t look like fun, especially when you don’t even get to shoot back. You’d hope world leaders would see something like this movie and understand that the suffering of young people being sent to do battle with one another would be enough to deter further conflicts or at least approach such situations with some sort of caution.

Unfortunately, the U.S. seems to want to be more of a “fire and fury” type of country right now, and a movie about WWII doesn’t seem likely to change anyone’s minds in a nation whose leadership and a portion of its populace doesn’t show much respect for foreign perspectives. There just doesn’t seem to be much care or caution coming from American leaders when it comes to getting involved in foreign conflict. To be fair to current leadership, that’s mostly been the U.S.’s policy since WWII ended.

There are other, obvious ways the movie differentiates itself from other war movies. First of all, it isn’t an epic, especially looking at the 106-minute runtime. There is a lot of action, and those sequences are almost uncomfortably long at times. Yet whereas many war movies rely on heavy, realistic gory effects, copious amounts of swearing, or horrific atrocities to drive home the severity of the situations, this movie contains none of those. It does utilize more subtle, Hitchcockian effects at times, like Tommy running through crowds of soldiers on the giant piers set up in anticipation of the coming rescue ships, and coming upon an enormous hole in the flooring, a remnant of what (who) used to be there. It’s a reminder that, even in quieter moments, there is really no safety for these troops, which helps raise the tension even more. But the movie is so “tame” by war movie standards, it even gets a PG-13 rating, whereas war movies almost always automatically are assumed to garner an R rating.

170721115937-dunkirk-harry-styles-super-tease

Then, there’s that foam on the beach that looks gross and off-putting. The tone is so unpleasant for the entire movie.

Anyway, this one is difficult to compare to other Nolan films. Other than the excellent cinematography and the unique plotting, being a historical film, it doesn’t really feel much like Batman, “Memento,” or “Inception.” If anything, maybe all of Nazi Germany is kind of like the Joker, though he was more into psychological torment, whereas the German military directly bombards “Dunkirk’s” characters. The Nazis did the psychological torment thing too, just not in this movie. But this is another great Nolan film, and a welcome return from a messy, disappointing “Interstellar.”

And finally, whose decision is it to put Tom Hardy in a mask in these movies? Hardy plays a fighter pilot, who delivers all of his dialogue — much of which is distorted by the vibrations of the plane — wearing an oxygen mask and speaking by radio to his fellow pilot and home base. The man is an excellent actor, and he does not need to be muzzled. Nolan was one culprit in the masking of Hardy in his Batman trilogy finale “The Dark Knight Rises,” where Hardy played Bane, who also required an oxygen mask. In “Mad Max,” he had a steel muzzle for good portion of the movie. This would be his third masked performance, and, assuming he gets into the full symbiotic costume for “Venom,” that would put him under a hood yet again. People, he’s a fine enough looking gent, let the man breathe freely!

The masked man

“Dunkirk” is a different kind of war movie, and it ought to seem like a fresh take on the subject to anyone who’s seen enough American war films. It should help one appreciate the sacrifice of soldiers who fight to keep their country free, while understanding that they’re mostly just young people who don’t really know what they’ve gotten themselves into until they’ve already gotten themselves into it. In a crowded Oscar year, it’s possible, but it doesn’t seem likely that Christopher Nolan will get his first best picture win this time, but it more than earns its spot at the table.

Countdown to Liftoff: “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012)

Posted on January 15, 2015 by babemoby

Following the critical success he received for “Inception,” Christopher Nolan returned to his beloved Batman series one last time with “The Dark Knight Rises” in 2012. He would wrap up the trilogy in grand fashion, finishing up loose ends left after “The Dark Knight” and putting a definitive ending to Bruce Wayne’s career as the Caped Crusader. In many ways it served as a love letter to that universe, but also to frustrate many viewers with its odd plotting. This film seems to be the point where many fans started to turn against Nolan, though critics still received it well.

The new villain on the block is Bane, played by one of Nolan’s new favorites, after his excellent work in “Inception,” Tom Hardy. Batman fans might have been disappointed that Nolan went with Bane as the villain in the final act of the series, as there were other iconic baddies that would have been interesting to see get the Nolan treatment: Penguin, Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Croc (who gets a sly brief nod), Egghead, Bookworm. It would be intriguing to see what Nolan could have done with any of those (OK, maybe not those last two oddities from the Adam West TV show). But Bane does play an important role in the comics, which are referred to here.

The movie opens with a bang, like “The Dark Knight” did, but this time in even more daring fashion, as Bane, along with a group of minions, hijacks a CIA jet in midair, extracts a VIP he was after, and sends the rest of the plane plummeting to the ground below. Nolan manages to get another great cameo by a lesser-known actor, popular to HBO geeks, Aidan Gillen, who was Mayor Carcetti in “The Wire” and can currently be seen as Lord Littlefinger Baelish in “Game of Thrones.” Bane’s stunt immediately sets the tone for the rest of the movie. He’s taking over, and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop him.

Littlefinger would have made a great Batman villain. Too bad he couldn’t fly.

Well, this is a Batman movie, so there’s bound to be someone who can stop him. But that someone who can stop him (Christian Bale) has taken to being a recluse. No longer the socialite he once was, after Rachel’s death, Bruce Wayne has taken to shuttering himself away from the public eye, deep inside his cavernous mansion a la Howard Hughes (though not to the extent that he’s pissing in Mason jars, like one of his visitors suggests). If there’s one animal that can disturb a small furry creature from its slumber, it would be a cat (Anne Hathaway), who manages to nab his fingerprints with little effort.

Hathaway’s version of Selina Kyle is incredibly self-confident, as she is so slinky and slippery that she’s able to get out of hairy situations without any trouble at all. But she’s got bigger things in mind. This Selina is one of those types who can’t wait to see the unjust system of wealth, corruption, and poverty in the city of Gotham come crashing down. As she expresses this desire to Bruce as they run into each other at a swanky party, she unwittingly foreshadows the plot that Bane is preparing to unleash upon the city. The revolution will come, but it won’t be one that anybody in Gotham wants.

The movie does start a bit slow, but in contrast to “The Dark Knight,” it works more as a slow burn building to something bigger, more consequential, with each element being integral to the grander ideas.

Eventually, Bruce does find himself face-to-face with Bane, and is woefully unprepared to deal with this new threat. As he was in the comics, Bane is again the man who broke the Bat, especially referred to into the scene where Bane cripples Bruce, an image ripped directly from the iconic panel. Bruce finds himself exiled to a prison somewhere on the other side of the world, and Gotham is rife for Bane’s takeover.

If the Joker only craved sheer chaos, Bane is the complete opposite, as every move he makes is carefully calculated. It makes him a formidable villain, and he has some grand ideas, which he uses to placate the city as he takes it over. That makes for a different kind of villain, one who in some ways appears more admirable than the other Batman villains in the series, though his seemingly well-intentioned ideas eventually give way to his ulterior motives. He does have the most pleasant demeanor of any bad guy, as everything he says through his breathing mask is delivered in such a kind, gentle tone that it doesn’t sound so bad when he’s telling one of his henchmen that it’s his turn to die in a plane crash or when he lets Bruce know his plan to torture him while he destroys Gotham. His voice is also mixed horribly with the rest of the movie’s sounds, so it has a much higher register than everything else and threatens to destroy your TV’s speakers if they’re not up to the task.

His plot comes to a head, at where else, but America’s greatest passion, a football game. The event is a nice detail that serves both to breathe life into Gotham as a major city, and as the venue of Bane’s takeover. The venue in real life is Pittsburgh’s Heinz Field, and the actors portraying the football players were members of the Pittsburgh Steelers. It’s fun to see Troy Polamalu and Hines Ward in a movie, though Nolan does unforgivably get a detail wrong here: Ward would never be on kick return duty.

HInes Ward was NOT a kick returner.

But thankfully he makes it to the end zone, as the rest of the field, along with all of the players on it are demolished (anyone who’s eager to see quarterback and probable rapist Ben Roethlisberger get killed in a movie might enjoy this). Bane announces to the city that he’s in charge now. He also has a really complicated bomb and the only person who can defuse it he kills in front of everyone.

“SOLD — to the man in a cold sweat.”

But Bane demonstrates that he isn’t such a bad guy, he essentially upends the system in place. All (well, nearly all) of the city’s police were working at the game, and the ones who are still alive are buried under the stadium. He lets the captives trapped in Gotham’s prisons free and sends the wealthy fleeing to seclusion, because the ones he does find, he’s putting on trial. They’ll be judged by none other than the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) in a short but fun cameo.

Bane promises an inviting form of social anarchy, where the tables are flipped between the social classes, sort of. The citizens basically end up in hiding while the crooks patrol the streets. Of course, the ultimate plan is to blow up the city. But the character does a good job of mimicking those (all?) politicians who talk a good game and promise their constituents the world, while simultaneously plotting their demise.

It’s odd in this case that Bruce represents order, rather than justice. But that’s the place Batman has held in other mediums, such as the animated series. The most interesting antagonists in any story usually have good ideas on what’s wrong with society. But something about their plan, whether their methods or their ultimate goal, are twisted in a way that will cause either a massive downfall for society or themselves to be the only benefactor. Bane (and by association, Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows) is one of those. So, Bane, in essence appeals to the will of the people. It’s poetic that when he takes over Gotham’s version of Wall Street, the thugs he has planted inside the building are posing as a shoe shiner and a janitor. He’s symbolically implementing the will of people, as he overthrows the wealthy and powerful by taking control of their money. But Batman opposes this.

Bruce believes he is actually fighting for the people; that was his stated purpose for creating the Batman. But in reality, he is fighting for the police and the wealthy, both symbols of power and oppression, as he attempts to restore order to the city. Even Bruce is a multi-millionaire mega-corporation owner, even if he is a philanthropist. In all of this, the losers are the people of Gotham. Under Bane, they only find promises of freedom, but with only those loyal to him reaping the benefits, and only until the bomb goes off. Under Batman, things return to the way they were, where the rich and powerful regain control of the city. That seems to be the way things work in the real world as well.

Nevertheless, it is compelling that Bruce is forced to redeem himself for the sake of the city. Bane has stranded him in the prison with a TV and little hope of escaping, planning to force Bruce to watch as Bane dismantles Gotham. But Bruce finds the will within himself to get back on his feet. As his prison mate tells him that his problem is that he isn’t afraid to die, as it basically makes him dead already. Bruce needs to find a reason to live, which he sees in his city becoming as crippled as he is as he watches.

Bane makes a formidable opponent to Batman. But he should have had a breathing mask that didn’t break so easily.

The movie does go a bit sour when you try to make sense of Bane’s plot. It’s revealed near the end of the film that his plan is to blow up Gotham using a device that was converted from a nuclear energy source to a nuclear bomb. But blowing up the city could have been accomplished as soon as they got access to the energy source. OK, so Miranda (Marion Cotillard), who turned out to be a traitor to Bruce, wanted to see Batman suffer for killing her father, Ra’s al Ghul. But then sending him to the prison in the desert seems like a waste since she and Bane had Batman all wrapped up in the sewers of Gotham. Maybe they just wanted to see him and the people suffer. That’s understandable, but for how calculating this duo seems to be, they certainly needed some work on their endgame.

And why the hell is there a timer on the bomb? The device was built to be a nuclear reactor, which would have no need for a timer. It was converted into a bomb by Bane’s crew. But their intention was to either detonate it on their own or let it detonate by itself because from decay. Either way, they don’t really care, so they would have no need to install a timer. It’s things like this and the villains entire plot that are built to create suspense, but since Nolan seems to intend his approach to Batman to be realistic, then these issues make the events of the movie seem to be necessitated by the story. That’s bad plotting.

There’s no reason this makeshift bomb should have a timer.

That’s disappointing, because the story Nolan has created is quite satisfying. Bruce sacrifices Batman, regardless of whether he himself lives or dies, for the sake of the city, which will always see him as a hero and the symbol of hope that he originally intended it to be. And in case of emergency, he has entrusted all of his Batstuff as a failsafe to Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), real name Robin, who over the course of the movie has proven himself worthy of being a successor.

Whether Bruce has somehow ridden off into the sunset with Selina or is blown up with the bomb which he dragged out over the ocean with the use of his arial vehicle, the Bat, is left up to the viewer to decide, in traditional Nolan fashion. It makes for a great story either way, and it really doesn’t make a difference for the future, since the sure thing is that Batman is out for good (and so was Nolan). The biggest negative on that front will probably be that it turned out that Ben Affleck will be the next Batman, rather then Gordon-Levitt (or anybody else).

Although “The Dark Knight Rises” never reached the heights of “The Dark Knight,” (who could ever top The Joker), and despite the clunkiness of the baddies’ plot to destroy Gotham, this movie ended up being a much more even experience than the 2008 movie. Bruce had a better plotline here. Hardy will always be welcome no matter what role he plays, and despite being a character whose only visible facial features are his eyes, he manages to be expressive enough to pull it off, and it’s a very intelligent and well-written part. After the Halle Berry debacle, the Catwoman character was in need of major overhaul, much like Batman was prior to Nolan’s movies. So, anything would be redeeming in comparison, and Hathaway proved to be adequate even though she probably wasn’t the best fit for the role. Gordon-Levitt is solid as a common cop who is just trying to do his part to help the people of Gotham.

Though this may be the last superhero film Nolan directs, he has left a legacy in his series that will push future comic book films to a higher standard. Since Marvel Studios has become a major box office force, that can only be a good thing. Unfortunately for fans of other heroes sorely in need of big screen representation (Wonder Woman, anyone?), this certainly won’t be audiences’ last taste of Batman, for better or worse (“Batman v Superman” might be pretty bitter). As for Nolan, he has produced some excellent, but nonetheless flawed work, and as his career has progressed, both the bad and the good have become more pronounced. He’s very ambitious, and with the backing of big studios that he lacked early in his career, that ambition has led to some enjoyable, but increasingly frustrating experiences. At age 44, he still has a lot of movies left in him. Every Nolan movie is a major event, and it will be always be intriguing to see what he comes up with next.

Countdown to Liftoff: “Inception” (2010)

Posted on December 23, 2014 by babemoby

Christopher Nolan followed up his most anticipated and arguably most popular film “The Dark Knight” with something totally off the wall in “Inception.” It doesn’t have the weird stigma of say, magicians, but making a movie about reaching into a person’s dreams to plant an idea in their head was something so off-the-wall, perhaps only a director like Nolan could pull it off.

Whereas the Batman movies are a bit more straightforward from his other fare, “Inception” both hearkened back to his older films, but combining it with the big-budget epic sprawl of “The Dark Knight.” The backing of a studio allowed Nolan to create some incredible visual effects that wouldn’t have been possible for him back when he was making “Memento” and “Insomnia.” As such, it’s great to just marvel as he unfurls the dream world he creates. It’s easily his most visually impressive film prior to “Interstellar,” of course, but still a completely different sort of accomplishment from his newest movie.

The film is about, well, a lot of people, but it mostly follows Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a dream bandit, for lack of a better term, and he’s being hired by businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) to convince the son of his near-death rival CEO to sell the business. Of course, Cobb’s not gonna do anything conventional like throw him in a car and threaten to kill him and his family or anything (at least not in the waking world), he’s going to tap into the guy’s subconscious and convince him that selling is the best course of action.

Considering Nolan typically works with a hyper-realistic style of storytelling, you might figure that a film about dreams might go deep into the science of dreams, like why people dream about the things they do or what those dreams mean. But no, instead, he concocts a heist movie that just happens to take place mostly inside a man’s head while he’s sleeping. It’s “Ocean’s Eleven” meets “The Matrix.”

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t go into the nature of dreams at all. Part of any good heist is putting a team together, and a key member of any good heist group is the unproven rookie who is a bit green, but although that’s a curse, it can also be an asset, as people like that are generally more hungry and bring fresher ideas to the table, like youthful enthusiasm and all that. Who else says youthful enthusiasm like Ellen Page? Her Ariadne is taken through the paces of dream structuring, so that she can be the team’s dream architect (it’s hard to come up with titles for these people since nothing like them exists). But even as the audience is treated to some really cool shots of worlds turning over on themselves and paper explosions, all of the language the characters use, whether it has any basis in reality or not, is mere gobbledygook here. Its purpose is to explain the world these dreamsnatchers operate in. It does make some references to common events that happen in dreams, like the falling sensation or death in dreams. It’s enough to make someone think “yeah, I get what they’re talking about”, but it wouldn’t be anything to bring up in conversation among your neurologist friends, lest you look foolish.

If nothing else, “Inception” made for endless meme fodder.

Unfortunately, it does seem like there’s quite a bit of wasted opportunity in many ways in this film. The science behind it all may be true to some degree, but it doesn’t really matter much considering the unlikelihood of anyone entering the viewer’s dreams while they’re sleeping. It’s all really cool to look at and think about — as long as the movie’s runtime. But once its over, there’s not really much left to think about. The movie doesn’t really go into the nature of dreams or their mechanics beyond any basic level. So there’s very little to relate to a person’s real life, which generally is the goal of good science fiction.

Another main problem is Cobb. The audience isn’t really given much reason to care about him, but is still expected to, considering his storyline is that he’s dealing with anguish over his dead wife (Nolan’s dead woman!) and exile from the U.S., which prevents him from being with his children. A parent’s love for his or her children can generally work as a character’s motivation, but considering the audience never sees him interact with his kids, it makes for a detached connection. The bulk of his character arc has him dealing with the loss of his wife, with whom he went dreamdiving way back, which caused her to still believe she was dreaming even in waking life, and thus killed herself to try and wake up. It’s weird and complicated, and the scenes that involve Cobb and his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), are wrapped in that gobbledygook dreamy talk language that makes it difficult to feel any human connection to the relationship that is or isn’t. DiCaprio makes up for it by just by being a great actor, but Cobb is no Han Solo or Indiana Jones.

Even Leo looks confused.

It’s a double shame that because Cobb’s story takes up so much room, the audience never really learns much about the other characters in the movie. For instance, in “Ocean’s Eleven” and its sequels, each member of the team has a specialty, so he gets his moment to shine during his part in the heist. The brothers and the actors playing them aren’t major stars or anything, but they do have their roles to play, and it’s fun to see them try to one up each other over the course of the movie. The side characters in “Inception” have areas of expertise to some degree, but come on, they work on dreams. It’s not hard to understand all the cogs and bits that go into making up a heist, but here, it’s just guys walking around like it’s normal inside a dream, as if it were reality. There isn’t much specialization among the characters, so none of them really get a chance to shine.

That’s disappointing because the glimpse the audience is given of each crew member’s life is intriguing enough that you want to know more about them. This was basically Tom Hardy’s introduction to wide audiences (which is awesome because he’s a great charismatic actor), and he’s a joy to watch in this movie, but not really knowing anything about who his character is makes it difficult to differentiate him from the others. The same is true of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Arthur and Dileep Rao’s Doctor Yusuf. Even Ariadne doesn’t get much background beyond she’s a student at Oxford. They seem like fascinating people, but you’ll never know what’s really behind them because the movie doesn’t show you.

He's a dream thing duder. He works on the dreams. He's fun to watch, but what the hell does this guy actually do?

He’s a dream thing duder. Uhh, he works on the dreams. He’s fun to watch, but what the hell does this guy actually do?

But it’s OK that not everything clicks in the movie, because it makes for a great thriller and an immersive, dreamlike atmosphere, where everything is just weird enough that you know you’re dreaming. It’s an action-adventure inside someone’s head! Who wouldn’t think that’s fun? It’s OK that there’s no science-philosophy dichotomy to ponder, because it’s just enjoyable to watch. Fluffy sci-fi can be great, like “Guardians of the Galaxy.” It does pique a viewers imagination just by exploring mostly uncharted territory. Even if Cobb doesn’t connect with the audience, the twist ending will leave viewers guessing for weeks. For all that doesn’t work in the movie, it also feels like a greater fulfillment on the promise Nolan’s early work showed with the finances to dream (hah) as big as he could, and he obviously dreams pretty big.

And it is interesting to see Robert Fischer’s (Cilian Murphy) story unfold, as his is the mind the ultimate dreamteam is planting their big idea in. His backstory is told elegantly, through Cobb’s crew’s exploration of the dream and the different methods they use to try to coerce him to alter his decision. They ultimately succeed in manipulating the man into doing what they want him to do. In a way, it’s a bit disturbing, but the different ways they try to persuade him to change his mind are an abstract way of looking at methods of psychological manipulation. The team tries kidnapping him and beating him to make him change his mind, and then make it appear that they’re doing the same to his dad’s assistant (all inside the dream). Later, Cobb approaches Robert in the dream and tries to act like they know each other. It’s a different way of looking at a horrible thing that people do to one another, so whatever that’s worth. Murphy is not exactly known for playing sympathetic characters, but there’s a great talent in taking a stereotypical spoiled brat and making that character relatable to the audience, and he accomplishes that here.

Cillian Murphy does something a bit different from the other Christopher Nolan movies he’s in. Well, he’s not the Scarecrow, so anything would be different.

It’s also fun to see Tom Behringer as Robert’s father’s assistant. Nolan always comes up with great lesser-known actors to fill smaller roles in his movies, like Eric Roberts in “The Dark Knight” and Rutger Hauer in “Batman Begins.” That makes for a nice bonus for movie nerds.

Making a fun thriller was somewhat of a first for Nolan. Though his other movies are great, at times, they might leave the viewer asking “why so serious?” The Cobb storyline with his wife is an attempt at gravitas, but the whole thing is too absurd to take too seriously. But some fun performances from Hardy and Page and the tremendously creative visuals make for an enjoyable 2 1/2-hour extravaganza. It’s great that Nolan finally got recognition from the Academy with a Best Picture nomination, although had “The Dark Knight” been released a year later, it might well have gotten in as well since that was the year the Oscars started allowing more than five nominees for that category. Nolan will probably never make an Oscar winner because he doesn’t create movies with the real-world gravitas Oscar demands, but even a nomination is a huge accomplishment.

Is it still spinning?

Nolan would continue to dream big (as in making a really long movie) with his return to Gotham. Next time we’ll look at “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Countdown to Liftoff: The Dark Knight (2008)

Posted on December 4, 2014 by babemoby

Christopher Nolan returned to the Batman mythos with the “Dark Knight,” following his cinematic reboot of the series, “Batman Begins,” possibly the most highly anticipated Batman film in a very long time. True to the title, “The Dark Knight” went to a darker place than any Batman movie prior.

Undoubtedly, in every way, this movie belongs to Heath Ledger and his demented version of the Joker. Yes, it’s a Batman film, and he is the protagonist, but everything about it revolves around his most famous foe. It’s impossible to separate the legacy of this film from Ledger and the tragedy of his death during production. He went out with one hell of a performance.

The Joker is easily this film’s greatest strength, but in a way also its greatest weakness. This will certainly go down as one of the great performances in the history of film, as Ledger completely transforms himself into this evil, manic, super villain (basically, he’s Lewis Black) that’s so far removed from any of his other roles. This isn’t your grandfather’s Joker (especially if your grandfather is Jack Nicholsen). He didn’t just put on some clown makeup and prosthetic and ham it up a la Cesar Romero. He crafts a memorable character that permeates the entire film, even many moments where he isn’t even present. The Oscar he won for best supporting actor (which could have just as well have been best actor) was well-deserved.

Ya know?

The Joker looms over the entire movie. His schemes are so pervasive and unpredictable that they continually send the city into panic, as well as Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and all the people he loves. He’s the antithesis of the honorable and principled Bruce, as he has no ulterior motive for the chaos he perpetrates, other than that he seems to find it amusing, and he is entertained by the conflict it creates between himself and the Caped Crusader. He’s a master of manipulation, and he gets into the head of everyone who crosses his path. That’s evident whenever he talks about how he got the scars on the sides of his mouth that create a permanent, unsettling smile. Every time he tells the story, it’s something completely different.

The downside to the Joker is that he overshadows everything else in the movie. Part of that is due to the rather bland plot and shallow character arcs. But it seems like Nolan knew what he had (The Joker) and ran with it as far as he could. It would have been nice if he would have put more effort into everything else.

The movie starts with a cracking bank heist, which serves to build the Joker character splendidly. This isn’t like many bank robberies where the criminals assure everyone that everything will be alright if they just cooperate. The Joker’s henchmen force several of the bank’s patrons to hold grenades while they do their work. One by one as each henchman completes his assigned task, another one eliminates his fellow crook until the only one left is the man himself. It makes you think that word would get around that he doesn’t share his bounty with his underlings and that working with him won’t get you anywhere good. But then again, he proves throughout the film how manipulative he can be.

Then there’s a scene of Batman breaking up a meeting of one of the villains from the last movie, the Scarecrow’s (Cilian Murphy), but also running into a couple wannabe Batmans wearing hockey pads. That shows the film is still grounded in relative reality, as there probably would be copybats if a guy starting rolling around in a military vehicle beating up bad guys. It’s a nice touch.

But then, the movie moves into a rather vapid scheme that has something to do with Chinese investors. It serves no real purpose, other than to formally introduce the Joker and give Batman an excuse to execute a cool Mission Impossible-style black ops type of mission to nab the leader.

But then, the Joker’s only plan seems to be to mess with Batman and the people of Gotham, albeit in rather demented ways. The fear the Joker creates makes provides the film with urgency, as he promises to start killing important people around the city until he can meet with the Batman.

Maggie should have been in the first movie too.

In a weird casting snafu, Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over the role of Rachel from Katie Holmes who played her in the first movie. It’s always strange when a character has a new actor. In this case, however, it is a welcome change as Gyllenhaal is a much more versatile and charismatic actress. In fact, Gyllenhaal is very convincing in showing that she should have had the part from the beginning. Rachel suddenly shows off a stronger, sassier, more vibrant attitude that she didn’t have before.

FILE: Eliot Spitzer, Wife Announce They Are Ending Marriage

Thankfully, this was not one of Harvey’s faces.

Which is a bit of a shame, because the character is basically fodder for Bruce and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and the Joker to fight over. Her new boyfriend, the Eliot Spitzer-esque (pre-high class escort scandal) Dent is here to clean up the corruption in the city, even though it seems Batman really does all the heavy lifting. Naturally, the Joker is here to upset the balance of normalcy in Gotham. By doing that, he kidnaps Rachel, leading Dent and Bruce, who still pines for her, to launch a full-scale campaign to get her back. It doesn’t go well, she winds up dead. Dent winds up horribly disfigured. All hell breaks loose. Cats and dogs living together, etc.

Bruce is shaken up, as he still loved Rachel, and he thought Dent could basically take over the mantle of the city’s hero because he really doesn’t want to do the Batman thing anymore based on a rather foolish promise she made back in the first movie when she was still Katie Holmes. It leads him to wonder what all this Batman nonsense was for in the first place. That’s kind of a weird crisis to have, considering the whole costumed crusader thing seemed like a pretty bad idea in the first place.

If he really wanted to help the city, then as the resident stinking rich guy, instead of rolling around the city blowing up shit with a military grade vehicle or gallivanting around on a yacht with the Russian ballet, maybe he could have invested some of that money in the city’s infrastructure with jobs creation and welfare. Let’s face it, the Batman thing is cool and all if you wanna make a movie about it or something. It was useful in rooting out some of the criminals who were running the city before and in dealing with weirdos like Scarecrow, Ra’s al Ghul and the Joker. But when it comes to providing the city what it really needs, a caped crusader is probably pretty low on the list. Trying to pass his legendary figure status off onto Harvey, who didn’t do as much as Batman seems like an odd way to go about things.

Sad Bruce Wayne. Sad. So sad.

Once Harvey’s got half his face scalded off, he starts going about things in a rather odd way himself. Though his transformation into the popular villain Two-Face makes for some fun moments, including killing Eric Roberts (whose presence is always more than welcome in any thriller movie), it feels like his character is wasted. As he’s lying in his hospital bed, explaining to Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) that he’s going to be the “Harvey Two-Face” the police always thought he was, it might make the viewer wonder why where that Harvey Two-Face was hiding earlier in the movie. There’s one scene where he threatens to kill a henchman of the Joker’s because Rachel has gone missing, but that’s it. Two-Face was a fascinating character in other Batman stories, who recognized that most things in life happen by chance, and so he made all of his decisions by flipping the two-headed coin he carried around with him. As it is in the film, he goes rogue for no other reason than his Rachel’s death. It just makes him seem whiny rather than a man who had been teetering on the edge and just got pushed over. There’s nothing before his transformation to show that he might have had an anger issue or at his coin-operated decision making skills. He basically just came off as a goody two-shoes who is willing to get a little bit of dirt on his hands, but not too much, to get the jobs done. It’s OK that the movie character didn’t live up to the one in say, the Animated Series, because a movie should be able to stand on its own apart from its source material. But it’s a problem that in a movie going for a realistic vision of a super hero tale, that the way his character progresses isn’t very logical, as well as only being based on what happens to his woman. Eckhart is a capable actor who could have handled the character’s nuances, but his talents are wasted here. In every way, Two-Face falls flat.

Two-Face is not half the man he was in the comics or the Animated Series.

Then there’s the whole thing with the Joker and his social experiment with the two ferries. First of all, to clarify, Tiny Lister is always fun to see, and he’s fun here too. But the whole episode is pretty bad. It is interesting that the Joker put those two boats in a dilemma where he was giving each one the chance to blow up the other, but if neither did it by a certain time, he would blow both up. That’s a great scheme. So much time is spent on both ships, neither of which holds any characters relevant to the story outside of this incident, and considering the film didn’t take enough time to develop some of its principal characters, it’s unnecessary.

Well hey, at least Tiny Lister is here.

The way the situation is set up, one boat is full of regular civilians, but the other carries prisoners. The way the direction of the movie went, it’s unsure whether the audience is intended to believe the prisoners are simply evil criminals or a more realistic view where many people in prison are in their predicament due to a combination of a bad hand dealt to them in life and some unfortunate choices they made in difficult situations (probably the former). What Nolan seems to be trying to show with this is that it’s easy for people to say these “criminals” don’t deserve to live, but it’s not easy for even the most self-righteous person to be the executioner. Based on everything surrounding the events of the last few months in Ferguson, Missouri, none of that seems to be true of real people. It doesn’t take much wrongdoing in some people’s eyes to see another person as a criminal who deserves to be executed. That’s a biased viewpoint that likely comes from prejudices, often based on race, as well as gender, sometimes on social status. Over the last year, it seems like people, and especially police, have been pretty quick to pull the trigger just because they don’t like the people around them. It doesn’t appear to be a difficult decision for those people. This episode shows that Nolan views the world through rosier glasses. In a way, prisoner Tiny Lister’s grand gesture of throwing his ship’s detonator out the window is an acknowledgement that he and the other prisoners do deserve to die, because they already had their chance in life, and those “normal” people shouldn’t have to suffer for that. This film is seven years old, so of course it couldn’t have accounted for events within the past year, but in today’s climate, it sends a condemning message about people labeled as criminals that has ugly implications. And besides, police violence isn’t really a new thing, it’s just that people who knew the victims are now fed up with it and working to get people’s attention.

The movie also takes advantage of some of the political happenings in the years leading up to its release, mainly regarding things that happened under President George W. Bush’s time in office. When the Joker kidnaps one of the Batman wannabes, he records a video that resembles the ones made by al-Qaeda that surfaced on the Internet, which depicted the terrorists beheading prisoners. Batman creates a surveillance network tapping into people’s cellphones to pick up surrounding audio, which Q Lucius (Morgan Freeman) decries as being too invasive of privacy, resembling the Patriot Act and now recalling the Edward Snowden-NSA scandal. The Joker uses one of the Arkham patients as a suicide bomber, essentially. The Joker’s use of fear tactics and his assassination of several political figures creates a sense of paranoia around the city and Harvey gives a speech that recalls Bush’s push to return to “normalcy,” and Gotham has always represented New York, which obviously was the site of 9/11. Even the mostly useless plot about the Chinese contractors makes some connection to real world events. Perhaps it was an attempt by Nolan to be “edgy” or to make social commentary, but the terrorism related elements come off as kind of exploitative in hindsight for those who have knowledge of the state of the world back then. Maybe in 2008, those images helped to evoke feelings of fear in the audience by association. Then again, maybe to future audiences, those elements will simply come off as effective and disturbing to those who weren’t privy to those times. The inclusion of those images seems unnecessary though to someone who remembers those events clearly.

This movie will always be linked to Ledger’s death. Though it leaves a remarkable legacy for him, it does bring into question the type of method acting where actors try to get inside the head of the characters they are playing. Knowing how he died makes it appear likely that this role was probably a key factor in his death. He had to go to a very dark place psychologically to understand this version of the Joker. Maybe it was too much for him to handle. Assuming that’s true, you can say stupid things like he died doing what he loved and all that. But he loved acting, and you can’t act when you’re dead. There will be so many spots in so many movies that he could have filled. Although he received critical acclaim previously for “Brokeback Mountain,” this was undoubtedly a breakout role for him that would have catapulted his career to new heights. But he didn’t survive it, so the world will never know what could have been. Who knows for sure everything that led to his death, especially as it sounded he was reclusive in those final days? But a role in one movie isn’t worth a person’s life. There probably never will be another character as demented as Nolan’s Joker, though Jared Leto has already been cast for “Suicide Squad,” but that Joker probably won’t be quite as far out there as this one was. The last the world will see of Ledger under the makeup will be the character hanging upside down prophesying to Batman “I think you and I are destined to do this forever.” It’s sad that sentiment won’t be true.

The Joker on his own makes “The Dark Knight.” This is the first of Nolan’s movies where it seems like all the separate elements he’s working with don’t really blend into a good cohesive whole. The Joker is the glue that holds everything together, but although the Joker works remarkably well all-round, he’s really the only thing that works. But that’s good enough to recommend to the few people who might not have seen this movie by now to check it out. In reference to my larger, ongoing project, it wouldn’t be surprising to see this movie on the AFI’s next 100 Movies list thanks almost entirely to Ledger. If there is any director that would be a lock for a new entry onto the list, it would have to be Christopher Nolan. If this movie doesn’t make it, perhaps it will be the one that followed this one. Next time let’s take a look at “Inception.”

Liftoff: “Interstellar” (2014)

Posted on November 13, 2014 by babemoby

In 2014 , Christopher Nolan has set out on a new journey in a new direction. In “Interstellar,” he charts a course for unknown territory, expanding his horizons.

It’s fitting that in his first film that veers away from unsavory characters and cops and crooks, he chooses a genre that’s historically been all about exploration and visions of the future. His vision is rather original. Whereas most space movies dream about the distant future, Nolan explores a future that might not be too far off.

It’s strange that it’s easier to consider robots, advanced technology, and tearing across the galaxy at warp speed than it is to consider what the beginnings of intergalactic exploration might look like. That’s probably partly because directors don’t want to get it wrong and have their work look outdated in a few decades, like all those scifi guys in the 60s, 70s and 80s who tried to predict what the current millennium might look like. It’s ironic and sad that there’s talk of Justin Bieber going to space in the future, whereas Stanley Kubrick, who famously envisioned what a futuristic space program might look like, never got to.

Technology didn’t quite reach the point Stanley Kubrick thought it would have by 2001.

Nolan pushes his audience a few generations down the line to show us what the future might hold on earth. With the recent technological boom, all of earth’s (or just the U.S.’s, it isn’t certain) kids grow up to be engineers, and with all of humanity’s eggs in that basket, food production seems to have been neglected. Nolan has always attempted to draw even his most outlandish films with realism. This future that he’s envisioned seems like a realistic one, considering the current demand for technology. The cool thing to do is to right now is to work for Facebook or Google or any upstart social media group, as opposed to boring, yet essential occupations, such as farming. So, it’s an interesting setting (prediction?) Nolan has come up with, and it sets up for a dire story when things inevitably begin to go wrong for the earthlings.

But for the themes of exploration and moving on, it’s a bit disappointing that the film is, ironically, rather grounded in many ways. It’s trapped by similar movies that have come before, and Nolan fails to do anything particularly exciting to push the genre along. And at a running time of 169 minutes, it feels like more should have happened in that lengthy span.

Of course, there are lots of Star Trek clones that involve a crew traveling through space. Though those types of shows and films are interesting because they create aliens with their own complete civilizations and a look at what humanity might be like in such an environment. It’s not as if the world needs more of those necessarily. “Interstellar” might in some ways serve as a bridge between current reality and space operas. It’s humorous when one member of the ship’s crew goes into cryostasis for the first time and another member looks a bit unsure about getting into the tube himself.

A major problem is that there’s no real direct conflict. When the film does try to drum up conflict, it feels manufactured and unnecessary. A movie about exploration doesn’t necessarily need human conflict, but it pops up at strange points and rarely pushes toward that theme of exploration. In fact, it kind of holds the film back and keeps it from reaching heights that it could. When the film concerns itself with father-daughter drama, it could be spending its time exploring other worlds. It’s not so much that the film didn’t do what Nolan intended it to, it’s that the ideas Nolan went for often aren’t that compelling or have been done elsewhere and better.

That’s not to say “Interstellar” is a bad film by any stretch. It’s technically marvelous. It doesn’t insult the viewer’s intelligence in the way that say, “Oblivion” did by mashing a bunch of scifi cliches together mostly in the last third of the movie. There are good points about it. It seems as if Nolan tried to make the film a jack of many trades, but it ended up being a master of few.

“Interstellar” is a marvel visually.

It does to do some things that haven’t been explored in a realistic sense in space films, such as when Matthew McConaughey and company steer their ship into a worm hole. If you’re interested in how good the science is in this movie, look no further than Neil deGrasse Tyson’s series of Tweets about it. If he says it’s good, then you’ve gotta trust that man.

The most compelling idea the movie addresses is its theme of survival. Namely, what does survival mean, not only for individual people, but for the entire human species? Where does survival shift from preserving what is to focusing on what will be, and where should the line be drawn between those two philosophies? When should humanity abandon one of those philosophies for the other? The movie kind of seems to go with a softball answer of doing both (although that may change depending on one’s reading of the ending), which is probably the correct answer in most cases, but if you’re going to raise a situation where that becomes a dilemma, then it would be nice to explore possibilities other than the most pragmatic one to see where that idea goes.

On the other hand, there are a lot of mysterious happenings that help set up the film, and it seemed like it would lead to interesting questions about the origins of those things that didn’t necessarily need answers. But the film answers them, and it turns out they were in some ways more and less mysterious than originally thought, but in a way that leads to more of a facepalm than any awe or wonder. It’s one of those cases where the mystery was more compelling than any answer would quench, but Nolan couldn’t leave it at that.

You can’t complain about the acting for sure. Being a country boy is what McConaughey is, and being a country boy is what he does best. Being a country boy is what his character, Coop, is here, and he does it well. Seriously, he is impressive here, and does his best to sell his character even when the character is put into somewhat absurd situations. The Academy swooned over his performance in “Dallas Buyers Club,” and many people got really excited over “True Detective,” but with the range of emotions he conveys here, McConaughey probably should be looking at another nomination, as it might be some of his best work, but he probably won’t get the recognition this time.

God made a farmer…

Anne Hathaway as Dr. Brand is fine as his astronaut partner. She has her moments an actor, and she’s OK here (although her dissertation on how love is the key to future is horrible and is best forgotten), but the biggest problem with her is that she doesn’t look like an astronaut. Astronauts are the ultimate combination of intelligence and athletics. You can’t really say what intelligence looks like, but skin and bones Hathaway does not look like an astronaut. McConaughey has that athletic build with his ripped upper body that he’s showed of in photos on the beach, so he’s pretty believable as an astronaut. Note, that’s not at all to say that women can’t be astronauts because there are many female astronauts. But, let’s be honest, probably none of them look like Anne Hathaway.

Jessica Chastain is pitch perfect as a NASA scientist, and it’s a joy when she and some other notable Hollywood names pop up, especially if you don’t know they’re in the movie (stay off of IMDB!).

There were two other crew members on the mission with Coop and Dr. Brand, but those two were obviously not as important, because the movie didn’t bother to go into much detail about who they are or give them anything particularly important to do. It might have been nice if those characters had been fleshed out a bit more, but they weren’t.

And that meanie Nolan just keeps making that nice gentleman Michael Caine cry over and over. Could someone please make that jerky jerk stop making that old man cry? He needs to learn respect for his elders.

The biggest problems with the film arise when the movie makes it all but completely obvious where it’s headed but then still expects the audience to be surprised when it gets there. If it were chess, the viewer would be able to see three or four moves ahead what Nolan is trying to do, but he doesn’t shift his strategy or anything to compensate. Some of his previous films were all about twists, which he executed well. He could stand to make a film that’s more straight-forward, but every time a major event begins in the film, anyone who’s watched their share of movies should know exactly where it’s going. When it gets there, it’s not very interesting. When there’s a reveal late in the film, it seems like the movie wants you to think it’s something very sinister. But it isn’t, and it isn’t all that surprising of a reveal. That’s a little disappointing coming from the guy who made “Memento.”

Although it is a Nolan movie, it would be a spoiler to talk about how many women get killed in the movie, so let’s just go with what the audience is given from the beginning. Coop’s wife died before the movie began, so Coop could have a difficult relationship with his children because he’s a single father. That leads to a fairly important development in the film, but it’s another case of a woman who doesn’t even get to be a character used for the man’s character development. Blech.

Could Anne Hathaway be an astronaut? She can play one in a movie apparently.

The film does end on an ambiguous, open-ended note, as is typical for Nolan. If you just take what the film presents, it might not seem that ambiguous, but considering the circumstances, there isn’t much certainty. Depending on the viewer’s reading, it can change the meaning of the entire movie and some key events. Either way, it’s in some ways both exciting and hopeful and also bleak and frightening. It’s one of Nolan’s most effective ambiguous endings, as different readings could present drastically different viewpoints of large parts of the film. It will be interesting to discuss those viewpoints in the future.

It is the case of a film probably being better the less you know going in, so stay off IMDB as stated earlier, and I tried to keep it pretty spoiler free here. It was a major victory for Nolan to keep the promotional campaign as vague as possible for this movie, keeping a few big names off the poster, which again makes their inclusion all the more surprising and enjoyable. In a pop culture world where there are spoilers on every website, the way you go about these things counts as part of the audience’s experience, so kudos to Nolan for doing the best he could. Although Chastain’s presence being made public even seems like giving away too much.

This all is not intended to be jumping on the Nolan bashing bandwagon. If you’ve read thoughts on his other films on this site, you know that there are many great things he does as a director. If you’re a fan of his, you’ll see the movie anyway, and you’ll probably enjoy at least some parts of it. If you’re a Nolan hater, then nothing he does is going to satisfy you anyway. The movie is a mixed bag. Some of it is underwhelming, but also some of it is enjoyable. The worst thing is you might start wondering how many lightyears you could have traveled during the length of the film, as it really didn’t need to be three hours long. But that’s the way it is, and you’ll probably get over it.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away from “Interstellar” is actually a rather understated point. John Lithgow, in a great departure from the characters he typically plays, as Coop’s father represents probably the youngest of the existing generations. As the film is a look to the future, and as current older generations seem to understand so little about those who are young adults and younger, it serves as a good reminder to those who feel that previous generations were less than accepting of how the world has changed since they were young themselves. Each generation thinks that it’s going to be different from its parents generation and hopefully be accepting of the coming generations in the way that previous generations weren’t. This film, and Lithgow’s character specifically, show that it’s up to the current generation to carry their beliefs in open-mindedness into the future, and hopefully they don’t stand in the way of progress, no matter how absurd it will seem. If current young adults’ grandchildren are yearning to push to the furthest reaches of space, then if that happens to be a reality, they shouldn’t bury their heads in the corn and pretend it’s an impossibility. That’s the sort of idea scifi is about.

John Lithgow in “Interstellar.”

———————-

Note: I didn’t finish writing about Christopher Nolan’s previous movies before “Interstellar” came out. Sorry. Life gets busy sometimes, which makes it hard to stick to plans, no matter how well they are laid out. I’m still planning to get to his last three films I have yet to do. But I thought it was important to write about “Interstellar” while it’s still fresh.

Countdown to Liftoff: “The Prestige” (2006)

Posted on October 31, 2014 by babemoby

In a decidedly different direction, Christopher Nolan’s followup to “Batman Begins” would try to inject a little magic into his cinema. Forgoing his usual subject of the lives of cops and crooks, “The Prestige” is literally about two rival 20th century magicians dueling over who can do a better trick. In the process, they end up destroying not only each other’s lives, but the lives of those around them.

Nolan again would tap Christian Bale for a role that’s vastly different from that of Bruce Wayne, as well as the “X-Men” movies’ Wolverine himself, Hugh Jackman as co-stars.

Magicians and magic tricks, despite Criss Angel’s best efforts, don’t exactly command anyone’s attention this century, and a yarn about modern magicians would sound rather silly. The setting of turn-of-the-century London helps pull the audience into being able to take the main characters seriously, but it does take a little suspension of one’s better sensibilities to get into two grown men squabbling over besting one another in a competition of illusions. The underlying feeling of silliness never goes away completely, but in a way that only serves to add more weight to the folly the pair undertakes. But “Arrested Development” fans might hear Gob Bluth saying “It’s not a trick, it’s an illusion,” repeatedly in their head as they watch this movie.

The stars the two leads play are two young magicians who come up together studying under a veteran, taking part in helping along the tricks he performs. One of them, Alfred Borden (Bale), is enamored by the concept of a magician making his entire life a performance, to help sell the illusion better. The other, Robert Angier (Jackman), is more simply obsessed in the fame and glory. He fashions himself a better showman, adopting the name, The Great D’anton, which his wife suggests for him. Unfortunately, due to a mishap that Borden causes, Angier’s wife, who was also part of the show, is killed, setting Angier off on a path of revenge.

As they go their separate ways, Borden marries a woman, Sarah (Rebecca Hall), and starts to gain a bit of a following, due to his wealth of creative energy. Naturally, Angier sees Borden living the life that he had desired with his own love, as well as his own competitive nature perking up, and begins to seethe with jealousy. Thus ensues your basic pissing contest, with each man pushing his own limits trying to top the other. Not only does each one put all his efforts into coming up with better tricks, but also sneakily popping up during the other’s performances to cause problems.

All the while, the audience is made privy to a case in the present, in which Borden is on trial for Angier’s murder. As with all Nolan films, this thread runs concurrently with the competitive time in the two men’s lives, keeping the viewer wondering as to how the two timelines will converge. Nolan by this point has honed his editing skill well, making the transitions seamless. This isn’t necessarily a good thing as it can become disorienting, which might require repeated viewings to keep up. Nolan films generally beg for repeated viewings anyway, and with how beautifully shot this film is, there probably aren’t many complaints.

The competitive drive in both men forces them to make sacrifices in their lives. The will to succeed surpasses their concern for the people around them, and their personal lives suffer for it. The rivalry is nasty from the beginning. It’s understandable that Angier is distraught and vengeful over his wife’s death, and he has no qualms over causing Borden physical harm. As Angier takes on a lovely assistant (played by the quintessentially lovely Scarlett Johansson), who assists in other things besides the performances, each man does worse than neglect his home life, but actively sacrifices it not just for his work, but to beat the other guy. It’s a rather unhealthy obsession, which leads to dangerous places.

The dangerous place Angier’s unhealthy obsession leads him to is Colorado, which is not so dangerous in itself, except for a certain scientist who is performing strange but important experiments. The film somewhat humorously incorporates an historical figure, scientist Nikola Tesla as a character, played even more oddly by rock star David Bowie. Tesla’s assistant Alley is portrayed by Andy Serkis, who contributes some of his best work not involving a motion capture suit. Angier makes somewhat of an unholy deal with Tesla, which takes the film into surprisingly dark territory.

The inclusion of Tesla, and the pair of Bowie and Serkis, along with the setting and the magician theme make for one bizarre concoction (an oddity, if you will) that would threaten to take this movie into spectacle in less capable hands. From that description, it almost sounds like a B-movie that someone took way too seriously and spent way too much money on with talent who probably deserve much better. But Nolan has a plan, and he keeps it under control.

Strange things are afoot at Tesla’s laboratory.

In regards to Nolan’s predisposition towards sacrificing women in his movies for his own gains, he’s on a bit of a rampage in this one, as two women die for the sake of men’s character development. But in this film, making sacrifices is actually one of the main themes, especially for the sake of the magicians’ rivalry. So, in a way, this is a critique of placing one’s work ethic or one’s drive to succeed above all else, especially when it’s to the detriment of those around you. Borden often talks about making sacrifices for his craft. But it’s one thing to make personal sacrifices. In this case, and in the case of many workaholics, the price is not only paid by oneself, but by the people around them. In this movie, two women die because selfish men are more concerned with the silly notion of trying to be the best magician in the world, or more specifically, better than the other guy. So at least a point is made here about sacrifice, whereas in Nolan’s previous films, a dead woman was just part of the backstory.

This point is driven home further when after being ordered around like a messenger pigeon, Johansson’s assistant character finally tells Borden that she’s leaving him and Angier alone because they’re clearly meant for each other. Spotty British accent aside, Johansson is solid, if not spectacular in her role. Though she’s just an assistant, the character shows intelligence where it’s found lacking several times in the main characters.

The trope of dead women is again employed by Nolan, but at least he makes a legitimate point about the sacrifices men make for their work this time.

The movie progresses to Angier scouring the earth looking for a double of himself because Cutter (Michael Caine), the man with the magic plans, says Borden’s fancy new trick involves a double. Naturally, Angier needs a double since that’s what all the cool magicians are doing these days. It turns out the device Tesla was working on creates a clone about 100 feet away or so of whatever’s standing inside of its electrical field. That means allows Angier can make a trick where he disappears and reappears behind the audience nearly instantaneously. But in order for the trick to work, he can’t allow for there to be dozens of Angiers running around London. Who knows what kind of shenanigans they might get into that could sully his reputation? So he devises a way for one of them to die every time he does the trick. At this point, Angier is literally sacrificing himself for his work. This does beg the question of where does his consciousness go if he’s cloned. But maybe it’s better to not make one’s head hurt searching for an answer to a question that doesn’t really matter.

Borden gets too curious about Angier’s method, and finds out the hard way what happens to the clones. But in doing so implicates himself in Angier’s supposed death, which is how he winds up on trial for murder. While he’s in prison, whichever Angier is still living comes to visit Borden in disguise with Borden’s daughter showing him that he’s going to adopt her basically, which means that he wins, while Borden gets the noose. The fight has to come to an end at some point, and the two men fought each other tooth and nail (false teeth and trick nails), so the only way for it to end is for one or both of them to die. Or does it? Once it appears that Borden has died, it’s shown that he had a twin brother all along, who takes it upon himself to exact possibly final revenge on Angier.

Christian Bale has a ball with his role in this film.

Christian Bale seems to have a ball with his role in this film.

It is pretty nice that Nolan effectively takes the reigns off both of the lead actors and lets them go here. Bale’s performance is in stark contrast to his brooding, moody Bruce Wayne character. Here, he’s just a massive prick. It’s fun to watch him gloat when he gets one over on Angier and run off to lick his wounds and regroup when he loses. He gets to show much more of his range and personality that would later win him an Oscar for his role in “The Fighter.” Jackman is just as enjoyable as the pompous and whiny Angier. Both characters are such divas that it’s a little hard to see them as anything other than two silly men trying to put on their magic shows. But that’s probably part of the point as well. Caine is also much better here as an older veteran of the magic circuit and moral compass Cutter than the weird over-emoting he occasionally does in the Dark Knight movies.

The setting is also enjoyable. For all the popularity the steampunk subculture has gained recently, in terms of media involving that subculture, it’s mostly reserved for obscure books, anime, and video games. There aren’t many popular or good steampunk movies. But with Tesla’s involvement, and his strange contraptions, as well as his far ahead of the curve harnessing of electricity that powers a town in the early 1900s, this film fits within that subgenre. It doesn’t go overboard with the steampunk elements. But for that classification, it wouldn’t be difficult to call it the best steampunk movie that exists now. Maybe that will change as the subgenre continues to gain popularity, however.

This is a fine showcase that shows what a creative director can do once he has the budget that comes with having a successful super hero movie under his belt. The world he creates looks vivid and alive. Far removed from his early films that caught a major studio’s attention, Nolan takes advantage of his new higher production values. The costumes and sets reflect the time period he’s working in, but he manages to not make it too drab. The world of early 1900s magic looks beautiful, and it makes the viewer want to go and live there, even though actually being there probably wouldn’t be all that great in reality.

Nolan has another excellent film in “The Prestige.” The magician thing might be a turnoff for some, but if you’re willing to take it for what it is, it’s smart and highly entertaining and beautifully shot. It’s fun watching two prima donnas engage in a pissing match basically for no reason, especially when both of them are such great pricks. It wouldn’t be fun to watch that in real life, but this is a movie, and it shows that the natural end of such a rivalry in reality would end horrifically.

After “The Prestige,” Nolan would return to Batman for the “Empire Strikes Strikes Back” of his trilogy. It would feature one great performance that came at a high price for a talented actor. Next we’ll take a look at “The Dark Knight.”

Countdown to Liftoff: “Batman Begins” (2005)

Posted on October 19, 2014 by babemoby

“Batman Begins” and its sequels became Christopher Nolan’s new calling card. Although he’d received critical acclaim for “Memento” and “Insomnia,” this film put him on the map with casual moviegoers as well. By taking on a well-known franchise (and at that, one in severe need of repair), while not sacrificing elements that make his work unique, Nolan set himself up for commercial success that comes with wide public recognition for his art.

And it didn’t just feel like Nolan simply lent his presence to the superhero genre with another action-packed, substantially empty entry. To the contrary, “Batman Begins” is a great movie in its own right, rather than just being a better version of superhero flicks. Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy kicked comic book movies into a new gear, and one that would influence similar movies to come.

It’s a strong statement to say that this is a great movie, rather than just comparing it to other similar films, because let’s face it, there wasn’t much competition pre-2005. “X-Men” kind of kicked off the new wave of comic book-based movies, and it was a pretty good entry, which showed that both technology and writing were finally up to snuff enough to make such films that were actually good. Then there were the “Spider-Man” movies, which ranged from terrible to pretty decent. After that, there was a wave of shitty Marvel movies, like “Fantastic Four,” “Daredevil,” “The Punisher,” “Ghost Rider,” etc. It was getting to the point where those movies took over for the typical summer blockbusters with so much source material to mine that was already written with graphic representations even. So, calling a movie “good, for a superhero movie,” doesn’t really mean much, especially a decade ago.

But then, came along this Batman movie that dared to question the very nature of these tights-clad heros, with a darker, grittier presentation that seems more true to life than its predecessors. Unlike the Adam West “Batman,” with its cheesy costumes and hammy acting, or the Tim Burton/Joel Shumacher era of movies featuring be-nippled batsuits and corny villains, this movie dared to take Batman seriously. If there’s any other Batman property this movie could be compared to, it’s the animated series from the ’90s, which was rather dark, but also very smart, for being a children’s cartoon show. But, of course, there are things directors can get away with in film that they can’t show on Saturday mornings.

Look on my nipples ye mighty and despair!

The trilogy of films taken together could be seen as the “Citizen Kane” of superhero movies. The timeline of events spans from Bruce Wayne’s formative years through his retirement/death. In terms of quality, it’s one of the best films of its genre, if not the best.

The thing that sets this movie apart from other cape flicks is how realistic it feels. If a young billionaire decided to carry out his own form of vigilante justice in real life, this is probably about how it would go. It also paints the character of Bruce Wayne as more morally complex than the traditionally simple heroes versus villains dynamic seen in other superhero movies. In fact, his decision to go under the mask seems rather questionable, considering his flimsy explanation for why he’s doing it.

One of the interesting themes for modern Batman movies and shows is that the supposed villains usually are aware of real societal problems and that becomes their driving reason for whatever their dastardly plot may be. The problem is their means for solving social issues usually involve sending Gotham city into frenzied chaos and panic or mass murder. But if they were to channel that energy into positive solutions, the city would be much better off. Batman, on the other hand generally represents maintaining social order and the status quo, which puts him standing in the way of real reform. “Batman Begins” starts with Bruce, played by Christian Bale, learning from the League of Shadows how to defeat corruption in the city. Leaders Ducard (Liam Neeson) and Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) try to teach him how to destroy evil. Bruce says that his desire is “to fight injustice, to instill fear in those who would prey on the fearful.” Unfortunately the League of Shadows’ solution for that goal is to send the city into chaos, which Bruce ain’t goin’ for.

Instead, Bruce decides the way to solve his city’s problems is to throw on some military gear, load it up with gadgets and terrorize the seedy underbelly of society. Being filthy stinking rich thanks to the inheritance of megacorporation Wayne Enterprises because his parents were killed by a petty thief when he was just a boy, perhaps you’d think there could be a more practical solution to the city’s problems, like the monorail his dad built to provide cheap transportation to those in need. But, of course, practical solutions would make for a rather boring movie. A guy running around in a bat costume and scaring the shit out of mob bosses is easier to get into.

His inspiration for change comes from his sleepy-eyed childhood friend, Rachel, played by the sleepy-eyed Katie Holmes, who takes him to the ghetto of the city to show him there are real problems that are more important than moping about his parents being dead. Most of Bruce’s inspiration comes from Rachel, as Bruce is prone to making poor decisions, such as decking himself out in a bulletproof suit, stocked with experimental military-grade weaponry. She has a knack for lecturing Bruce on morality, basically acting as the conscience he never had, telling him to get his life straight and stop being selfish since he is the most powerful man in the city. She reminds him that his parents left a great legacy, and he has a lot to live up to.

Meanwhile, a psychologist who likes to freak people out with a fear-inducing agent and a weird mask, is collecting convicted criminals in his asylum, which is basically just a base of operations for his plan to cripple Gotham. The plan is a bit convoluted, as it involves pouring that fear-inducing substance into the ground water and then vaporizing it. But Cilian Murphy, most known for playing weird, creepy guys, makes for a fun villain. It also makes for a good argument against the privatization of prisons, which is a huge issue in the U.S.

The cast is a huge bright spot, and it was Nolan’s first attempt with a large ensemble cast full of talented actors. Gary Oldman works well as future Commissioner Gordon. Tom Wilkinson makes for a good manic but powerful crime lord. It’s good to see Rutger Hauer as the new CEO of Wayne Enterprises. Michael Caine is always fun to see, and he’s fun to watch as butler-and-more Alfred. Then there’s also Morgan Freeman as ~~Agent Q~~ Lucius Fox, the gadgetmaster, who basically serves as Bruce’s version of Q from the James Bond franchise.

Freeman and Caine both naturally add a bit of levity in the form of banter with Bruce that shines some light in a rather dark film. If there was anything Nolan’s previous films could have used a bit more of, it’d be something to lighten the mood a bit. It’s always fun to watch either of those actors, and their presence is more than welcome here.

And then, a 10-year-old King Joffrey shows up and you didn’t know what a nasty little shit he’d become on “Game of Thrones.” He still looks so innocent though.

This is the one we really needed Batman to save us from.

As Nolan’s previous films revolved a bit around certain devices to get the plot moving (short-term memory in “Memento”; sleeplessness in “Insomnia), “Batman Begins” feels like a more realized film with more socially relevant commentary. The only gimmick here is Batman, but people probably expect to see Batman in a movie about Batman. The plot evolves a bit more organically with so many intersecting characters that it’s more well-rounded overall. The cast makes a big difference too, as there are so many great actors involved that it was bound to work. It’d be easy to call this Nolan’s best movie at the time, and possibly the best in his entire catalog. Whereas the previous movies he’d directed almost feel like comic books, being fairly simple crime stories with a twist, “Batman” is much more complex, intelligent, and realistic (ironic, considering it’s based on a comic book) compared to his previous work. On the other hand, “Batman” does feature more loud action sequences, but Nolan works those into the story so they don’t ever feel completely pointless.

One thing that is pretty stupid about the movie, which would continue in the sequels, is the silly growly Batman voice Bale puts on when he’s in costume. Seriously, Bruce Wayne is possibly the most recognizable figure in the city, but no one realizes it’s him in the batsuit? If anyone was around him when he had a cold or a sore throat, you’d think it would be a dead giveaway. If he can afford a giant state-of-the-art armored vehicle to roll around the city in, he should be able to find a decent voice-masking device he could install in the suit or something.

The segue into the final battle with Ra’s Al Ghul does feel a bit rushed and that kind of diminishes the ending, but up to that point, the film is clicking on all cylinders, so it’s a flaw that can be overlooked.

It seems a bit wrong to see the white Bale taking down dozens of nationally ambiguous Asian guys with some form of martial arts. It is interesting to see the philosophies Ducard espouses during Bruce’s training. There’s a lot said about learning to center one’s self and overcoming fear by embracing it, which seem to be based on Zen Buddhism. Maybe it would have seemed more authentic if Ken Watanabe would have played the character explaining all of this stuff to Bruce. Liam Neeson is great and all, but he doesn’t really look the part.

Bruce Wayne about to take down all the Asians at their own game.

Though Marvel probably wouldn’t want to admit it, “Batman Begins” was very influential in revitalizing the superhero film genre. Superhero movies started to up their game after this, as there was now a quality standard. Marvel started casting bigger names to star in its movies, started its own film studio, and created plans for upcoming movies lasting into the next decade. Whether or not those plans were already in the works, the company had to be aware that it now had big competition. There was a noticeable jump in quality in post-2005 Marvel movies, which is relieving considering they release a few movies every summer now. Also, movies like “The Watchmen” (which was a success because of its source material and performances rather than direction) would not have stood a chance of being made until “Batman Begins” showed that dark superhero movies would sell. So, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the movie industry is what it is today for better or worse because of this film and its sequels.

Giving Nolan the reigns of a superhero franchise in need of revitalization was solid gold. Still, this film sits in the shadow of the next film in the trilogy for a few obvious reasons. But before “The Dark Knight,” Nolan would go in quite a different direction, exploring the lives of rival magicians in 19th century England. Next we’ll take a look at “The Prestige.”

Countdown to Liftoff: “Insomnia” (2002)

Posted on October 3, 2014 by babemoby

With the indie hit “Memento” under his belt, Christopher Nolan’s next effort would be “Insomnia,” a remake of a 1997 Swedish film. Without question, it’s Nolan’s most conventional, straightforward film, but only because the rest of his films are so twisty (except “Batman Begins,” maybe). That’s not necessarily a knock on the director, as it’s very coherent, and aside from a couple missteps, is a tight but complex movie with bigger stars than he had worked with previously.

For this one, Nolan got to work with Al Pacino who played the lead role of Detective Will Dormer, an agent from Los Angeles who has been called to a small town in Alaska to help the local police solve a gruesome murder of a high school girl. Here, he plays the old, grizzled veteran who commands the respect of his peers, as the local cops stand in awe of him. He’s like a god among police, and he knows it. He marches into the station and starts barking orders and as far as he’s concerned, he could probably have this thing wrapped up by lunchtime.

Except that he forgot that this is Alaska, where at 10 o’clock at night in the summer, it’s looks like midday. If you’ve ever been to Alaska in the summer, you know that the sun only goes down for about 3 hours a day. Hotel rooms come equipped with thick curtains. But it can be rough for people who need darkness in order to sleep. As experienced as he is, Dormer’s toughest foe might not be the scumbag he’s looking for who murdered this young girl, but the rotation of the earth. As sleepless days and nights pass, his mind starts to play tricks on him, and he looks progressively more disheveled and weary, hence “Insomnia.”

As far as crime movies go, it’s amazing that more of them haven’t been set in Alaska. Sure, trying to depict winter might get pretty boring, as the temperatures would be too cold to do much. But it’s the perfect place for unhinged individuals to do their vile work or at least a place of escape with all that open land out there. There’s so much forest and so few people around who will give a shit what you’re up to in your cabin out in the woods. “Insomnia” makes great use of the surroundings, and especially as a foil for Dormer, the frigid state takes center stage as its own living (slowly) character in this movie.

If the never-ending daylight weren’t bad enough, even though Dormer has seen it all in his days on the force, the bad guy he’s trying to catch is no dummy. It’s actually Robin Williams, which is a brilliant casting choice, and it’s actually weird that he didn’t get his first role as a psycho killer until he was past 50. How did no one come up with something like this sooner? It’s no spoiler to say that Williams’ reclusive novelist, Walter Finch, is the villain, as that was one of the main draws for the film in its advertising. Granted, an evil Robin Williams probably wasn’t something too many people were interested in seeing, but he does a good job playing unstable, but mostly calm, and always one step ahead of Dormer.

Could Robin Williams pull off the psychotic killer role? Please, it’s surprising he didn’t do it more often.

Complicating things for Dormer, beyond not being able to sleep, are his history and a development in the movie. Early on, there are hints that Dormer and his partner, Hap (Martin Donovan), are in some kind of hot water with the agency, and Hap reveals that he wants to turn himself in, to put it simply. One of the weak spots of the film is that this conversation comes off as a bit of standard but necessary cop talk that viewers might overlook, but it’s background information that is very important to the development of the film. Maybe Nolan was trying to lure viewers into a false sense of understanding, like he’d done in his previous films, or maybe it was just bad writing. But it is an important scene, because the next day, while they’re chasing a man who they believe to be a suspect in the girl’s murder, while running through the fog (always a warning sign), Dormer plugs Hap as he’s standing off in the distance.

Who knows what was running through Dormer’s mind as he pulled the trigger? Was it an accident because of the fog and confusion or lack of sleep? Did he do it on purpose to keep Hap quiet or was it just a convenient accident? It’s never really made clear. Though the viewer wants to trust Dormer with his vast experience and charisma, as the movie moves along, it becomes abundantly clear that Dormer is no golden boy. Instead of being intelligent, but by-the-book, it turns out he’s willing to get his hands dirty to get the job done. In his mind, the end always justifies the means. In his reports, Dormer lies and says it must have been the suspect who shot Hap.

So, the film actually serves as a nice character study for the old, grizzled veteran cop archetype, and a deconstruction of the brash and macho sort of masculinity that usually comes with those types.

Contrasting Dormer is the young, plucky Officer Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank), who practically announces her fangirldom for Dormer as soon as he steps off the plane. He’s apparently something of a legend in cop circles, and she’s his number one fan. But once the shit hits the fan between Dormer and his parter, Ellie is moved off the murder case and onto the investigation of Hap’s death. With all the spirit of Nancy Drew, she sets out with her magnifying glass (not really, but basically), going about what she initially believes to be a routine cleanup report. But as she finds more information and Dormer’s case progresses, she starts to deduce that Dormer might not be telling the truth.

Eventually, Dormer and Finch meet, as Finch has Dormer in a blackmail situation, being the only other person who knows how Hap died. So, they strike a highly tentative deal to get Finch off the hook. Finch doesn’t beat around the bush in admitting that he killed the girl, but he has a plan to keep himself out of jail by blaming someone else the girl knew. As there’s no way for one to trust the other, so ensues a cat-and-mouse game between the two, with Finch generally holding the upper hand over the ailing Dormer. Nolan would revisit the one-upmanship game a few years later in “The Prestige,” though that would be about two turn-of-the-century magicians rather than cops and killers.

The complexity of Dormer’s predicament with his killing of Hap and the many troubles that come with it keeps the movie from being a one-note crime thriller with a side of sleep deprivation. Nolan deftly weaves all of these elements together to create a smart tale about morality and doing the right thing that makes for a great … middle of a film. The setup is a bit clunky with revealing the backstory and Dormer coming into the town the attitude of getting ready to kick ass and take names seems like it’s setting up for your run-of-the-mill crime drama (thankfully, it doesn’t continue that way). Again, perhaps this is purposeful in setting up Dormer for his gradual fall from his perch. Then the ending feels a bit rushed with a fairly standard shootout and awkwardly placed exposition with Ellie interrogating Dormer after figuring out what he did, as the murder suspect flees to a safe spot where he can take point and start firing away at them. Though Dormer’s story wraps up well, Finch’s ends abruptly. Though that may have been more realistic than a dramatic farewell, it still feels a bit flat for such an interesting character. Despite those problems, the evolution of Dormer’s and, to a lesser extent, Ellie’s characters is interesting enough to hold one’s attention.

Not being able to sleep because it's too bright outside is the worst.

Not being able to sleep because it’s too bright outside (and because you killed your parter) is the worst.

In what might have been Pacino’s most recent great performance (12 years ago!), Dormer’s arc could be seen as an allegory of Pacino’s career. He still comes in kicking down doors acting like he owns the place, but as far as many of his recent performances go, he’s kind of shit the bed. He’s been in some great films with some great performances, but with so many shitty, mediocre crime movies coming out every year, the ones plastering Pacino and De Niro and whichever big stars from the past all over their advertising, like “Righteous Kill” or “Stand Up Guys” come off as money-grabbing and desperate. Granted, actors gotta keep working, but it’s sad to see these huge names are all a lot of these types of films have to offer with nothing new or interesting for their talented stars to do.

The dead woman trope crops up again as the setup for the film. It won’t be the last time. It is a common plot device, but you’d think such an inventive writer could come up with something else to drive the protagonists. At least Ellie is a more well-rounded character than any of the women in Nolan’s previous films, it just would have been nice to see her have a bit more to do.

This is the Nolan feature film people talk about the least. Though it is straightforward, it is more focused than any of his other movies. Despite a few missteps, it’s a very well-put together film that’s smartly written with the novelty of seeing Williams in his first outright bad guy role. 2002 would prove to be the year of dark Robin Williams with “Death to Smoochy” and the incredibly creepy “One Hour Photo” also being released. As far as it relates to other films, “Insomnia” somewhat overlooked and underrated. It was well-received by critics, but as it’s wedged between one of his signature films and what would be the beginning of his push toward bigger things, this movie is kind of forgotten. But with its three stars doing among the best work of each of their careers, this isn’t one to sleep on. Nolan fans who haven’t seen this film should do so, and people who don’t like Nolan should check it out too, as it’s the least Nolany film in his catalog. Don’t skip this one.

A few years after doing “Insomnia,” Nolan would get the call to revitalize a franchise in desperate need of revitalization, and in doing so would reinvent a genre for all who would try to sell it short. Next time, we’ll take a look at “Batman Begins.”

Countdown to Liftoff: “Memento” (2000)

Posted on September 26, 2014 by babemoby

Before there was the Dark Knight trilogy, “Memento” was Christopher Nolan’s calling card. It worked its way into film lovers’ hearts with that trademark panache of Nolan’s first seen in “Following.” Again, he uses a clever editing style to give the film its unique charm.

“Following” showed events out of chronological order to raise viewers assumptions about what the story meant and where it was heading, then smash them by advancing the story in unexpected directions. Quentin Tarantino was known for playing with chronology in his most popular film, “Pulp Fiction” and again in “Jackie Brown.” But Nolan would take it a step further in “Memento,” by essentially showing the entire film backwards. Nolan integrates this technique as a feature of the protagonist’s character, i.e., short-term memory loss.

Leonard is a man whose wife was killed by burglars, and during the attack, he took a blow to the head, causing him to lose his ability to form new memories. He still remembers everything that happened before that day, so he still knows how to function and has his own personality and his goal in life, which is simply to find and kill the men who murdered his wife.

In somewhat of a breakout role, Guy Pearce gives Leonard the gravitas the character needs for such a story, but with his charm still manages to make the character likable and at times, even fun. The viewer feels some sympathy for Leonard because his condition makes him prone to being taken advantage of. At the beginning of the film, the viewer is just thrown into the story with Leonard shooting a man in the head and taking a photograph of him before any explanation is given. So, it’s a bit of a feat that Pearce is able to keep the audience on his side. Of course, as the story moves along, Leonard is revealed to be not such a nice Guy anymore, but the viewer is invested enough to stay for the outcome.

As other characters appear throughout the film, they’re introduced so that they seem as if they’re trying to help Leonard, but they prove to be only taking advantage of his disability, as they manipulate him into trusting them and doing what they want him to do. They even tell him to his face that they are using him, knowing that with his condition, he won’t remember them saying those things. It’s a harsh world Nolan has dragged the audience into, but still fascinating.

Fans of “The Matrix” should instantly find Joe Pantoliano’s Teddy an untrustworthy fellow. But they might be surprised at how blatantly evil his “Matrix” costar, Carrie Anne-Moss is as Leonard’s friend or love interest or whatever (it’s really complicated) Natalie. Neither is the greatest actor, but they both serve their purpose fine.

Maybe Leonard’s just stuck in the Matrix and that’s why he doesn’t remember anything. He should learn jujitsu.

Leonard tries to keep everyone and everything straight by taking notes on polaroids he’s taken of the people around him. It’s a system that seems doomed for huge mistakes “Arrested Development”-style, and of course, he gets all confused. Seeing a polaroid camera in 2014 is strange, and it makes the film seem really old. It’s interesting how quickly technology has changed, and it’ll be something to see how the next generation of people who watch movies like this will react when they discover this film, having never been aware of such a contraption. If the movie were made today, Leonard would probably store all of his photos and data in a smartphone, and it would probably be much more manageable and better organized than his system.

The really important bits of info Leonard finds he has tattooed onto his body. This doesn’t seem like a particularly wise move, as it complicates his memory system and could and does lead to many more mistakes, in addition to being really expensive. But he saves money by doing some of his own body art using pen ink and a needle, which also sounds like a bad idea. Supposedly, the permanence of the tattoos will help him recall important information, but without context, those phrases could mean anything and there’s only so much space he can use. Perhaps this was intended to be a metaphor for fragmented human memory.

The scenes of the main story are interspersed with black and white cuts of Leonard talking to someone on the phone in his hotel room, which are shown in chronological order. It certainly forces the viewer to engage their mind while watching the film to try and keep everything straight. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it might take some viewers a couple or three watches to understand what’s going on.

Although the film sounds gimmicky, it doesn’t really feel that way, in large part because of the way it unfolds. Leonard’s disability combined with the structure of the movie makes for a whole that’s much greater than the sum of its parts. If the film were shown in proper chronological order, it would feel incredibly gimmicky, especially with the way Leonard has to pause periodically to regain his bearings. Instead, the beginning of each event shocks the viewer as Leonard is often stuck in the middle of a precarious situation and has to figure out where he is and how he got there, often to humorous effect. As it is, the film plays out like a gritty noirish mystery with the storytelling serving to help the audience understand what it would be like to live with Leonard’s condition.

“Memento” again employs the dead woman trope with Leonard searching for the people who killed his wife. On the other hand, at least Natalie is given more to do than die. She has her own agenda and her own reason for using Leonard. But she’s such a mean character and without any real explanation why. Perhaps Nolan has a natural distrust of people or believes in the total depravity of humankind or whatever because he often seems to write incredibly nasty characters for his movies.

The ending is a bit confusing and rushed with its big reveal(s) all coming from one character’s explanation of the reality of the situation. Of course, with what the audience knows about that character at that point, he’s hardly trustworthy, and the real truth is left to the audience’s interpretation. But Leonard’s response to learning the “truth” is incredibly satisfying. His “scheme” does seem a bit convoluted, but it does make for a good story (people who have seen the film will understand this). But overall, the finish is a bit of a weak spot in an otherwise fascinating and creative yarn. It’s all about the journey, not the destination, right?

Don’t try to remember and drive.

The film does make some interesting points about memory. Leonard is a man whose memory is in question, and it makes one wonder why he’s so invested in his quest when he knows it won’t give him satisfaction and he won’t even remember that he completed it. But who has a perfect memory? In many ways memories do make us who we are, and nostalgia is powerful. We might remember important events and people, but details might be hazy. On the other hand, sometimes we remember certain random details clearly and misremember or forget more important things. Our past might be part of who we are, but we still live in the present, and who we are now isn’t necessarily who we were. Leonard living without being able to form new memories makes it difficult for him to live in the present, as he’s perpetually stuck in the past. And using the past as an excuse for why he’s on his present course but refusing to change it is a sign of weakness, not strength or resolve. There is a time for wallowing when horrible things happen to us, but eventually the time comes for us to move on toward recovery and healthy closure, which probably shouldn’t involve plotting to kill anyone. Then again, sometimes the memories themselves are just as or even more painful than actual traumatic events. This is why there are psychologists in the world.

In many ways, “Memento” was a huge leap forward for a young director still cutting his teeth really. Here, he shows that his concepts and editing and storytelling prowess can be compelling enough to overcome any weaknesses in his writing. This isn’t a perfect film, but it’s so unique that it demands to be seen and attempts at interpretation to be made. Nolan proved himself to be a great creative mind here, and set himself apart from the pack. What could have been a standard crime flick he transmuted into a film that reimagined the way films of its ilk were told. A few years later, he would reinvent an entire genre by trying to turn comic books into cinematic art.

But before that, he would direct a remake of a Swedish film with one particularly inspired casting choice. So next we’ll take a look at “Insomnia.”

Countdown to Liftoff: “Following” (1998)

Posted on September 17, 2014 by babemoby

With Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” on the horizon, I’ve decided to take a retrospective look at his work. Nolan has arguably seen more success this century than any other director, both critically and at the box office (maybe you could make a case for Peter Jackson, but that’s about all). Nolan got an interesting start in the film world releasing “Memento” to critical acclaim and “Insomnia,” which wasn’t quite as universally accepted, but still generally viewed positively. Then, he would make the leap from big potential up-and-comer to a somewhat enigmatic challenge with “Batman Begins.” That was the make or break film for Nolan, as he took on a franchise that was in dire need of a change. But with such a high-profile property, success was bound to propel Nolan into the stratosphere, but failure may have relegated him to the art house theaters for life, where only those that “really understood” his work would still claim him as a hero. Well, with “Interstellar” not far off now, and with the Dark Knight trilogy behind him, it’s obvious which result he got.

But Nolan has become a somewhat polarizing name recently, as his popularity has earned him a backlash of naysayers in the film community. So it seems like a good time to take a look back at what he’s accomplished in the past, and work our way up to the present culminating with his new film’s release in November.

In 1998, “Following,” both directed and written by Nolan was released, and is by far the least visible film he’s done. Let’s take a look…

—————————–

Looking at “Following” now, it does seem a little strange that Christopher Nolan has become a major player in Hollywood. There’s no denying the talent on display in his first film, but there’s nothing to indicate he would attain the level of success he’s had since 2000. That’s not to say the film is bad, it’s just kind of small compared to his other work. That’s probably true of any director’s first movie, but Nolan made quite a leap in every possible way going from this to “Memento.”

“Following” employs many themes people familiar with his later work would recognize. The most common of those would be that appearances are deceiving. He uses that idea to great effect in this effort.

The film follows a man who calls himself “Bill,” but is listed in the credits as “the young man.” In turn Bill follows others. He’s not so much of a creeper as he is just has a strange curiosity of trying to figure out who people are by following them around for a day. Of course, he doesn’t tell them he’s following them, so that might cause some issues. He sets some rules for himself, like not following women down an alley, and not following anyone twice in order to keep himself from getting into trouble. But for a guy whose hobby is basically stalking random strangers, it seems to be in his nature to break those flimsy rules.

Things change when “Bill” (Jeremy Theobald) gets caught in his spying by a man who identifies himself as Cobb (Alex Haw). Cobb immediately comes off as a highly intelligent individual, and by comparison, “Bill” is not too bright. Cobb informs Bill that he is actually a petty burglar, which is surprising to Bill because Cobb is a well-dressed man whom Bill had followed into an upscale cafe. So, immediately the audience knows that appearance doesn’t mean anything.

As Cobb takes Bill out for an outing of thieving, Cobb displays his intuition for understanding other people by looking through their stuff. He makes a good observation that when the people he’s stolen from get their insurance check, they’ll have to think about everything that was stolen before they rebuy it, to ponder if it was something they really cared about enough that they’d miss it or if it was something they realize they didn’t want anymore.

Of course, it’s not certain whether Cobb is really making good observations or just spouting intelligent-sounding ideas to lull Bill into trusting him. Perhaps it’s a bit of both. That’s more for the viewer to decide for themselves.

That concept of giving audiences something to watch and then decide on their own what they just saw and what it means is one of the hallmarks of thoughtful, artistic films in this postmodern world. That Nolan was able to eventually work his way up to making blockbuster, big-budget films is somewhat of a marvel, especially considering he’s continued to use the same technique in all of his movies, just applying it to different worlds and different stories.

In “Following,” Nolan tells the story uniquely through his editing. Though he’s certainly not the first to do it, the events of the story are shown out of chronological order, but as a master editor, he is able to manipulate the viewer’s assumptions and ideas the viewer might hold about what they are actually experiencing, forcing the viewer to continually shift their thinking throughout the film.

For instance, Nolan throughout the movie repeatedly shows the same shot of Bill with a bruised lip, as he surveils a club across the street. Every time the audience sees this shot, more pieces of the story have been revealed, so the viewer might find later that the assumptions they had about why Bill has a busted lip have changed over the course of the movie. At the beginning, one would assume someone whom Bill was following might have understandably become upset about it and roughed him up. After more of the story unfolds, you might find that your assumption was correct in a way, but the circumstances are not at all what you’d expected previously. This makes for a much more involved viewing experience. This sort of editing can sometimes be used to make up for a story that is lacking, but here it only adds to the rather original premise.

Throughout the film, Cobb’s scheme reveals itself, as Bill, assuming he’s in control of the situation (again not too bright), just stumbles through it oblivious that he’s being played. Oddly, it turns out Bill has a Batman sticker on his apartment door. It makes you wonder if Nolan had an idea of where his career was headed.

The real mystery of the movie is, of course, which of these guys is Batman?

Unfortunately, a common problem in Nolan’s canon peeks up its head in his very first movie. There’s only one woman in the film, played by Lucy Russell, who is basically expendable. She’s really only there as a pawn in the strange game between Cobb and Bill, and she’s more of a love interest/sex object than a full-fledged character. This isn’t the only film of Nolan’s where this is the case. It’s obvious that he doesn’t really understand how to write women or simply doesn’t care about writing good women in his films. The film is still quite interesting, but throwing a woman in there basically as an object is lazy writing.

The open ending will leave viewers wondering what they just experienced, and leave them trying to unravel its mysteries for a while. It’s the mark of a good director when you’re left wanting more at the end of the movie, and this one definitely whets the appetite for more. I don’t want to reveal too much, because the movie is certainly better knowing as little as possible going into it. A second watch would still be great since the finish might leave people turning it over in their heads trying to make sense of it, but a first viewing without any preconceptions of what’s going on is recommended for the full experience.

At a mere 70 minutes, “Following” is a tightly made film, where Nolan has the opportunity to tease his talent a bit and gain his footing before really getting the chance to show off what he can do with a real budget and a real cast. That’s not a dismissal of the movie, as it is worth a watch on its own merits, as it’s very entertaining to try and keep up with the film’s twists and turns. It will be interesting to watch the director’s development over the decade in which Hollywood arguably belonged to him.

Next time, I’ll take a look at the film that would be Nolan’s first real break in Hollywood, in which Guy Pearce stars as a man who tries to unravel a personal mystery while dealing with short-term memory loss, “Memento.”