Skip to main content

He has the same voice. He looks exactly like you.

Enemy
(2013)

(SPOILERS) If Enemy is anything to go by, Denis Villeneuve is an ideal choice to direct Blade Runner 2 in the place of Ridley Scott. Not because he has the auterish visual sense of Scott at his zenith, because he has an equally incontinent grasp of narrative. The excuse of Enemy, which its defenders would likely summon, is that, as an exploration of its protagonist(s)’s subconscious, a formally coherent plot can be thrown out the window. Unfortunately, that leaves the film open to anything and everything and leaves the viewer with a shrug of “Well, I guess it really doesn’t matter”. Enemy does have a lot going for it, including a superb dual performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, but it’s found wanting due a subtext that denies a coherent interpretation of events.


Villeneuve’s really quite lousy Prisoners came out the same year as Enemy, also starring Gyllenhaal (he has drug cartel thriller Sicaro coming out next, which has received raves at Cannes; then, Prisoners had pretty good notices too).  In comparison, Enemy is a masterpiece, but it falls considerably short of masters of the psychonautry such as David Lynch and Shane Carruth.


Javier Gullón adapted José Saramago’s novel The Double and, like Richard Ayode’s adaptation Dostoevsky’s doppelganger tale of the same name, it explores the relationship between two identical individuals. The Double fell short because it was rigidly familiar, rather than anything inherently flawed in the filmmaking. Enemy, for much of the time, keeps the viewer guessing in a way Ayode’s film doesn’t. That it fails to satisfy is partly down the limitations of potential interpretations, and partly down to its inability to satisfy even within those constraints. This isn’t a Lynch picture where the fractured personalities reflect a fractured world, where the occult is invested in every veiled corner and informs any (partial) understanding. Enemy has a few such elements, but discards them in favour of something altogether restricted.


Gyllenhaal is Adam and Anthony. Adam is a  serious-minded college history professor who lives with his girlfriend (Mary, Melanie Laurent). When he sees a movie in which he bears a startling resemblance to a bit player, he is unnerved and decides to investigate. He discovers Anthony, a struggling actor with a pregnant wife (Helen, Cronenberg regular Sarah Gadon), leading to abundant mental and emotional turmoil for both of them and their other halves.


90% of the discussion of Enemy relates to just what it all means, and most people tend to agree that Adam and Anthony are the same person, This in itself is pretty much rote for double movies; they reflect two sides of the same personality. Whether it’s the alpha-male creation of the stepped-upon man (The Double, to an extent Fight Club) or the desired other life of the man imprisoned in a relationship (Enemy), the creation fulfils a yearning of some description. It would be more impressive to fashion a movie where this didn’t happen, and probably absolutely crucial these days to craft one where it at least works on different levels at once. This is why Fight Club works so well; it isn’t all about the reveal, that’s just icing on the cake.


Enemy tantalises with possibilities. The exotic, exclusive and forbidden sex club visited by Anthony, the first thing we see, and the key to which is the next to last thing we see Adam see, suggests a surface level world with a twisted back door, Eyes Wide Shut style; there’s another layer of reality that may co-exist with our own. Has Anthony stumbled upon something dangerous? His conversation with the lift clerk is pregnant with such strangeness. Then there are the spiders, one crushed under the heel of a nude dancer during the first scene and then implicated in his life throughout the rest of the picture. One hangs menacingly over the skyline. Women with spider heads haunt his dreams (very on-the-nose). Another, giant spider, greets Adam in the bedroom in the last scene. Until that point, the picture is relatively impartial with regard to interpretations. Unfortunately that last shot, as unexpected as it is, leaves no room for doubt (unless one pursues the invading aliens reading).


Added to that, there is Adam’s lecture (and Anthony’s also? We hear it twice, the first time with confidence and the second much less so). He discusses strategies of dictatorship, Marx and Hiegel (the former commenting that succumbing to such influences the first time is a tragedy, the second time is a farce). This imbues the picture, awash with foreboding, with a sense that reality is not what it seems. The bread and circuses of societal control is mentioned, and the co-worker who “persuades” Adam to rent the movie Anthony’s starring in could, in another reading, being someone directing Adam through the looking glass, into the underbelly of perceived existence. That, with the spiders, suggests a They Live! style paradigm shift. It isn’t that the picture needs to become a science fiction fable to succeed; rather the level it reduces to feels rather mundane and rote in comparison.


The control becomes that of a wife of her husband. The spider under heel represents Anthony’s desire to rid himself of the ball-and-chain burden of responsibility, replacing it with the abandonment of unfettered sex. The spider hanging over the city? Well, it’s the all-seeing control of the feminine (possibly his domineering mother, former Lynch wife Isabella Rossellini). And the punctuation point, clearing it all up, finds Adam, once more succumbing to the influences that created Anthony (the key to free sex) entering the room of their marital bed and resignedly acknowledging the presence of his giant spider wife (cue another cycle of cheating, jealousy, and double living).


While that’s all well and good as a consistent layer of Adam/Anthony’s psychodrama and existential angst, one gets the impression Villeneuve and Gullon decided that the theme was all. Consequently, bashing out something that made sense on multiple levels became too much hard work. It’s quite evident from their scenes “together” that Adam and Anthony conceive of themselves as different and distinct people. And it’s not such a stretch to see Helen’s first encounter with Adam as eliciting such profound shock because of the way he, the Anthony she knows, is doing such a consistent job of pretending to/being someone else.


So how, then, are we to interpret the phone call, moments after Adam disappears from sight (it’s that old one! No one sees them in the same room together, audience aside)? Helen calls Anthony, who answers immediately. Does Adam have two phones he switches between? More to the point, does he have two personas he switches between instinctively when he hears his wife on the other end of the line? Well, clearly not since he was just talking to her. If Villeneuve and Gullón were aware of the issue, they presumably decided it didn’t need to make sense as it was Adam’s subconscious. Which, when it breaks down, suggests a lack of respect for their chosen narrative form.


The picture stands very little analysis if we choose to buy into there being two distinct individuals. Chiefly because the sense of the uncanny, and being mortified by someone who looks like oneself, is overplayed to the point of surrealism. The disturbance and paranoia is whacked out of proportion, both on the parts of Adam and Anthony, and Claire too. As for Mary, well it’s probably reasonable to conclude she is a figment of Adam’s imagination (which is a little reductive towards Laurent’s fine performance, struck off as make-believe). Although, some theories have posited the car crash occurred in the past, and gave him his scar. While this would fit with the security guard at the talent agency not having seen him in six months, it would appear to be dismissed by the radio Adam hears that morning; he’s processing the external information to bring his own split to an end, temporarily at least.


Like Helen (“Did you have a good day at school?” she asks Adam posing as Anthony at one point; earlier she pointedly comments “I think you know” when he asks what’s happening), Adam’s mother knows they are one and the same. The difference is, she has known about it for some time; she knows he has two apartments, has affairs, that one of him likes blueberries, one nurses failed hopes of being an actor, such that on top of his problems “The last thing you need is to be meeting strange men in hotel rooms”.


Ultimately, Enemy leaves a feeling of disappointment. It isn’t all it might have been. It’s blessed with a trio of fine performances, and Gyllenhaal delivers fine distinctions between confident Anthony and awkward Adam such that you’re never in doubt who is who but neither does he ever overdo it. That the film is so opaque for much of its running time enables it to be a diverting, intriguing experience, and Villeneuve can certainly imbue foreboding in every frame (this was also one of the few positives of Prisoners). But such flourish is really just sleight of hand, signifying little. The trick is one we’ve all seen before.  Adam/Anthony’s crisis of identity is minor league stuff. The only way to pull this off would have been to obscure the intent and connections (to make it even blurrier) or to concertina the possible interpretations.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…