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.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.