Skip to main content

I don't think the Sun even exists in this place.

Dark City: Director’s Cut
(1998)

(SPOILERS) My previous look at Dark City: Director’s Cut is the more concise one, and it’s entirely borne out by a repeat visit. In extended form, Alex Proyas’ best film remains flawed but fascinating, never quite finessed enough in its mythology or execution to warrant the neglected classic status sometimes thrust upon it. It’s packed with ideas – a great deal more than most fare with David S Goyer’s name attached – many of them more striking than those of the thematically comparable and undoubtedly superior, game-changing Wachowskis movie released the following year.

It’s easy to see why Dark City didn’t catch on while The Matrix did. Both have a protagonist who perceives the illusion of his reality and develops the ability to manipulate this false world, essentially becoming a superhero. But only one assembles the iconography to make that rousing. There’s little doubt Rufus Sewell is a more versatile actor than Keanu, but he isn’t a star, and we’re unable to project onto him in the manner necessary for a role that is essentially a blank (there’s nothing to John Murdoch, aside from his becoming empowered).

Without an engaging lead character – in part, an intentional choice – it’s necessary to invest in the supporting players and the mis en scene, and while both are arresting, they’re rarely dynamic. This world fails to kindle a sense of urgency or true claustrophobia. Some of that can be laid at the door of furnishing it with the mantle of 40s noir (and German Expressionist cinema). The result is closer to Terry Gilliam’s The Matrix, which means the incidental details have to be everything. And that’s Dark City’s pitfall.

Because, while you can feel Alex Proyas’ interests loud and clear throughout his somewhat rocky filmography, there’s rarely a strong sense of his character. That’s why he can deliver something as mainstream as I, Robot and then throw everyone for a loop with the loopy Gods of Egypt (possibly the most unfairly maligned movie of the last decade). Dark City has bags of atmosphere, but not very much personality. It exudes (very good) art direction, creating a world that, excepting the occasionally intrusive digital effects, looks vastly more expensive than it actually was to create. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski (best known for his work with Gore Verbinski and Ridders) and art directors Michelle McGahey (amusingly, The Matrix) and Richard Hobbs (Fury Road) do sterling work.

The Strangers, meanwhile, are a positively inspired creations of eeriness, floating around the city and instructing the proles to “sleep” so they can perform their machinations. They’re obviously the Archon-esque equivalents of the Agents in The Matrix, but where the latter are configured in a fairly familiar Men in Black style, the Strangers’ legacy has been much more noticeable and impactive, from Buffy’s Gentlemen, to Fringe’s Observers, to The Adjustment Bureau’s employees.

While the Strangers too are blanks, they’re populated by the likes of Richard O’Brien, Bruce Spence and Ian Richardson (and Satya Gumbert as the inevitable scary Stranger kid; a bitey one at that). Indeed, O’Brien was Proyas’ inspiration for the characters (based on his performance as The Rocky Horror Show’s Riff Raff). He takes full opportunity to make a the most impact of any cast member when Mr Hand is given Murdoch’s memories in order to hunt him down. Most memorably in a scene with Jennifer Connelly’s Emma Murdoch; the dialogue itself isn’t especially arresting, as Emma comes to realise he knows what her husband knows, but O’Brien’s delivery is rich and resonant, and it’s exactly what the picture needs.

In the same regard, Kiefer Sutherland, then on the brink of a career second wind (on TV), having slipped into supporting roles for most of the 90s, shines as Dr Schreber. This is the mother of supporting roles, an opportunity to punctuate what might have been a perfunctory exposition machine by turning him into a hesitantly voiced, facially disfigured refugee from a Fritz Lang film. It ranks up there with his malignant boil in A Few Good Men as one of Sutherland’s very best screen performances.

Elsewhere, William Hurt underplays in that passively pained and dependable Hurt persona as the inspector trying to get a grip on this head trip; his most interesting quality might actually be his surname (Bumstead, hee-hee). Although, the scene in which he and a Stranger topple into space is highly memorable and well-conceived (and an addition during reshoots). Connelly does well with a blank (again, like Sewell, this is both intentional and a drawback). Melissa George is barely a cameo and ends up a corpse.

Dark City’s problems are less conceptual than they are structural and motivational. There’s a mystery here (what is this world?) and a goal (reaching Shell Beach), but the truths don’t have a great deal of impact (even with the removal of the expository dialogue that kicked off the theatrical version). There are clear analogies to reincarnation in the Strangers’ activities (“One day a man might be an inspector, the next someone entirely different”), and the limitations of prescribed reality (hence the Plato’s Cave reading of the picture, which is entirely relevant), but there’s no resonance to this the way there is with Neo when he discovers his paradigm is a lie. There’s powerful potential to the reset concept – the idea that we could awake as if continuing a life of drudgery, and yet this has been the first dawn for a newly overlaid persona – but it would only truly resonate if there was psychology, rather than cyphers, attached.

The Strangers themselves, in their appropriation of humanity (or this pocket of it), to create their own warped realm, occupy a not dissimilar role to the demi-urge of a false or corrupted world (see also The Matrix). It's also one that manages to take in both Flat Earth cosmology (this is a sealed, plane within an energy dome) and heliocentric (the city is floating amid the accepted universe). But their larger motivation doesn’t really scan, and rather diminishes them once it has been (over?) explained.

In contrast to The Matrix, there’s no realm to wake out of, only a realisation about the one you’re in. Which means the one area Dark City succeeds better than that picture is the uncanniness of not realising. Once Neo has awoken, there’s no returning to that deceived mindset, but Proyas continually stirs and prods at the limits of our ability to perceive beyond the assumed real. As I noted above, this doesn’t take off the way it might have with strong characterisation, but there are tantalising glimpses of profundity; Bumstead’s anger at John and initial inability to process his realisations is very resonant of any conversation with anyone occupying a firmly entrenched position in the prevailing paradigm. The scene in which the Strangers reconfigure a couple from scraping a living on the nightshift to the lap of luxury, or more mundanely, the hotelier transformed into a newspaper vendor, tracks the idea of just how, if our memories were remapped with our circumstances, we’d have no clue (it is from such bizarreness that we arrive at the Mandela Effect and its peculiarities). Or “When was the last time you remember doing something during the day?

You do feel Proyas rather shoots himself in the foot at times. The picture’s editing rarely gives us enough time for this world to develop potency (I don’t necessarily put this down to Dov Hoenig, who was doing great work with Michael Mann during this period, and good clean action with Andrew Davis). Even in its extended form, there’s a sense that Dark City is hurrying, but not in a tense way (at times, it actually feels like it’s dragging its feet, despite the choppy cutting). Some of that is a structural issue, one Proyas, Dobbs and Goyer never quite thrash out satisfactorily. Paradoxically, while there’s a lot to draw on here, Dark City never quite moves beyond the range of a Twilight Zone vignette. Where Neo is initiated into a secret society, Murdoch simply overthrows one, becoming all-powerful, now able to reconfigure this world as the Strangers did. But there’s no palpable sense of his achievement, of pleasure in his developing understanding of his world and triumphing over his tormentors.

As for the Strangers’ greater mission, it’s a bit of a let-down. Humans have souls “that makes us different from them”. They are on the brink of extinction, “use your dead as vessels” and have machines that help focus their telepathic abilities. Again, it’s both too much and not enough of the right thing. Proyas should probably have resisted even that much; his more pinned-down premise had the humans’ spaceship captured by the Strangers, giving birth to their experiment. In contrast, Goyer had a purgatory of the dead from different eras in history, which sounds more interesting. But then, so did Event Horizon on paper.

Still, John’s Blade Runner (the studio-mandated cut) ending, where the eternal night gives way to bright sunlight is quite nicely done, even if doesn’t really gel thematically (so is John Jesus, the saviour of this society?) Lem Dobbs provides a very erudite – he clearly likes what Proyas did, as opposed to his collaboration with Soderbergh on The Limey – breakdown of the picture’s post-modern trappings. And of the restricted reality of cities before travel allowed for escape (“Cities were prisons in themselves” – and they will be again, if Agenda 21 has its way). Unfortunately, such insights only goes to emphasise Dark City as a useful analytical text, which is very different to it being a great piece of cinema.


Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.