Skip to main content

I like to think I’m pretty unique.

The Double
(2013)

(SPOILERS) I didn’t quite feel the unreserved raves Richard Ayoade’s directorial debut Submarine received, but I liked it well enough and could see it carried across his idiosyncratic sense of humour – albeit in more overtly dark and twisted form – from his funny man persona. Most impressively, also was a fully formed technical confidence and filmmaking craft. His follow-up, based on Dostoyevsky’s novella, reinforces those opinions but its decidedly the lesser beast. It is at once a keenly stylised piece of world building and underwhelming in terms of personality. We’ve seen this story before, many, many times. And many of those many times have been in the last 15 years. The parallel that springs to mind is Duncan Jones following Moon with the accomplished but generic Source Code. The Double confirms Ayoade’s skill as a director, but on thematically well-worn material.


Which may seem harsh, but we all saw Fight Club a decade and a half ago (some of us even watched it on a big screen), and there the doppelganger theme was used shrewdly not only in terms of character and plotting but propped up a clever, pitch black satire. It was a smart movie, densely layered and stylishly told, one that utilised its twist in a manner that yielded further rewards on repeat viewing. The Double doesn’t store up its reveal, and neither does it have much to say beyond the obvious. Introvert and extrovert. That’s all that’s on offer; the rest is (mostly) production design and Ayoade’s, shall we say, eclectic (others might say annoying) soundtrack choices.


It isn’t always best to be return to “the original and best” or hallowed source (or earliest renowned example) of an idea or a theme. When it has been rigorously plundered, as the doppelganger theme has, it can end up looking fragile and derivative itself. Ayoade and co-writer Avi Korine (Harmony’s brother, but let’s not hold that against him) are fairly respectful, up until they swipe from Fight Club for their ending. Jess Eisenberg is, surprisingly, cast as a feckless, insecure loser Simon James. Everyone ignores him, tramples upon him or uses him. The girl he spies on through a telescope, Hannah (Mia Wasikowska) has no interest in him. His mother (Phyllis Somerville) offers him verbal abuse. Then, one day at work, James Simon is introduced, who looks the spit of James. Except he’s confident, relaxed, a hit with the boss (Wallace Shawn, underused) and the ladies (including the boss’s daughter, Yasmin Paige). He’s also a bit of dick. He’s as if The Social Network’s Mark Zuckerberg was able to turn on the charm. Despite his initial shock, Simon strikes up a friendship with James. But he slowly comes to realise James is usurping his life; his work, his interests, his loves. 


Ayoade and Korine have little interest in imbuing a literally explicable logic to the tale, the like of which we see in Fight Club’s flashbacks; Simon and James are shown and discussed in contact with others in the same space, so the whole must be interpreted symbolically or as Simon’s movie-long fugue. That might work fine if there was a sufficiently different take involved, but the pervasive familiarity makes the whole an overly cute study instead of deliriously unfettered, or unhinged; if it isn’t fully coherent, its because its sticking rigidly to the idea that this sort of schism doesn’t have to make sense. As such, this is all very restrained and co-ordinated; a rigorously designed microcosm with a dustily mustered through-line.


It’s there in the sub-Brazil design and the little guy pining after an out-of-his-league girl, buried beneath bureaucracy and his own mediocrity. It’s there in the casting of Eisenberg, informing a very limited playground as far as extremes of behaviour are concerned. Eisenberg isn’t bad, but we’ve seen him do the geek apologist act before (it seems like many times). We’ve also seen many varied and more vibrant doppelganger acts, from Jerry Lewis to Eddie Murphy to Jim Carrey on the comic side to Sam Rockwell, Jeremy Irons and Sir Roger Moore on the psychodrama front.  The guy who never gets served in a bar may be close to Ayoade’s heart but becomes tiresome when it seems to be merely imitating others who have done it better.


There are some neat (or cute, if one wants to strike a withering note) structural devices; Simon always asks for single photocopies when he finds an excuse to visit Hannah, when doubles are expected; the foreshadowing of the fate that befalls Simon, with the obsessive who hassles Hannah and is clearly a fit for Simon in his obsession; the final sequence, in which Simon devises his means of dealing with James, is satisfyingly constructed and executed. The scene where Simon helplessly watches James and Hannah kiss while he is beset by noisy interruptions preventing eavesdropping is the expert comedy of the frustrated fool. And the escalation with which James takes over Simon’s life has a sweeping flourish. But we’ve seen all this.


Ayoade is more comfortable distracting himself with indulgences; Simon’s Sam Lowry–esque obsession with the TV series The Replicator, a Garth Merenghi-inspired crap science fiction series in which Paddy Considine marvellously deadpans PT Kommander (“You’ll have to hand in your holo badge and blaster”). Ayoade embraces retro-designs somewhere between the 1950s and 1970s, along with early ’80s computer games. Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, a constant source of frustration as the guard who wont let Simon into his place of work, also appears as a doctor in one scene. What this means is open to debate. As are the activities of James Fox’s the Colonel (the boss for whom there’s no such thing as special people, only people). Probably very little; these are enticements suggestive of nothing that would substantially alter one’s view of the picture; they are “wouldn’t that be clever” nods, rather than actual clever ones.


Elsewhere the jobs for his pals don’t always quite fit. Chris(topher) Morris is too big for his one scene, although Chris O’Dowd and Tim Key fare better. Perhaps if Ayoade had given into the instinct to pitch towards broad playing, The Double would have worked better. But somehow I doubt it.  Nice to see Cathy Moriarty. Strange to see J. Mascis. Parts of the picture are nevertheless very funny, and the occasional line or exchange suggests an Ayoade who is doing himself no favours holding back. James instructing Simon that placing a hand on the small of girl’s back shows one is interested “or could push them down the stairs at any minute”. Then there’s ”Simon, give Rudolf his arm back!


Shorn of anything aside from the mundane interior turmoil of Simon, one casts about for avenues that might have been explored further. Mainly that comes in the form of Hannah, who exists on the periphery. She spurns Simon but pursues James, as we realise she too is showing two very different sides of her personality; the first picture she has torn up and thrown away shows a dual self-portrait, from behind. She responds most to Simon’s comparison of himself with Pinocchio (that James steals) more than she does his doppelganger’s insensitive but sly advances. Wasikowska is good (she always is, and deserves more than her share of the honours bestowed upon Jennifer Lawrence in the up-and-coming star aren) but she’s perhaps a little too naturalistic for Ayaode’s studiously eccentric trappings. Added to that, if he had made more of the idea of Hannah as a dual double he might have had something extra to run with (anyone focussing on the different movie posters, one with Eisenberg’s face split and the other with Wasikowska likewise, will feel misled), that could have helped made his picture distinctive rather a non-descript retread.


The Double isn’t a bad film. It’s vastly superior to Richard Gere’s The Double, although I can imagine distress on all fronts at taking the wrong delivery. There’s just little to distinguish it beyond its much flaunted split personality premise and claustrophobic, moody sets. Ayoade may see himself in his main character but the film doesn’t feel personal, and he hasn’t pulled any dandily deranged rabbits out of his hat. Instead, he’s completed an exercise in quirk.



Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was