Skip to main content

A puppet doesn’t have a soul.

The Thirteenth Floor
(1999)

(SPOILERS) The somewhat ignored third major Hollywood studio late-90s exploration of the nature of reality, The Thirteenth Floor had the misfortune to come out a couple of months after The Matrix turned everyone’s world upside down. And two weeks after Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. It also made the decision to embrace a noirish virtual world, one that proved less than compelling to general audiences in the previous year’s Dark City. Plus, the critics trounced it. The latter is the most surprising part in retrospect, as Josef Rusnak’s movie has a lot going for it, not least the best mind-bending twist of any of the artificial-realm pictures.

That twist being, of course, the simulation-within-a-simulation idea. You know, the one everyone thought the Wachowskis were going to produce out of their hats following the end of The Matrix Reloaded, in order to explain Neo’s sudden “real world” powers. Except they didn’t. I recently saw it suggested (in this article’s comments section) that this was their initial intention. But with The Thirteenth Floor getting the drop on them, they were forced to cobble together their dud of the concluding (for now) movie. Of course, The Thirteenth Floor wasn’t a new concept. Based on Daniel F Galouye’s Simulacron-3 (1964) it had previously been adapted – atypically – by Rainer Werner Fassbinder as a two-part TV film in 1973 (World on a Wire/ Welt am Draht).

Ashton: So what are you saying? There’s another world on top of this one?

Where The Thirteen Floor has a notable advantage on Dark City is in sustaining its plot. Even on repeat viewing, the connecting dots of this world engage. Certain choices by Rusnak and co-adaptor Ravel Centeno-Rodriguez add a sharpness to the proceedings, along with welcome misdirection. If Vincent D’Onofrio’s in a movie, he must be the villain, but his programmer Jason Whitney, friend of Craig Bierko’s Douglas Hall, really is the bumbling geek he appears to be. It’s his 1937 alter who is nefarious, discovering the limitations of his world and (as per The Matrix Reloaded) engineering an escape. In tandem with this, Hall, on the next layer up, also learns that he is in a simulation. The driving on and on out of town idea, until one reaches an undisguised wireframe grid, is also much better visualised than the edge of the dome in Dark City.

Where The Thirteenth Floor doesn’t quite pay off is in failing to embrace the potential of its idea fully. Gretchen Mol’s Jane Fuller, taking the avatar of checkout girl Natasha Molinaro, informs Hall that she has entered the programme – the 1999-set programme we initially believe is real – to shut it down. She lives in 2024, where there are thousands of simulated worlds, “but yours is the only one that ever created a simulation within the simulation. Something we never expected could happen”. Putting a restrictive lid on this means the story can be tied up neatly, even if the screen going dark at the end, akin to a computer being turned off, leaves open the possibility that this might actually be infinitely recursive.

Jane: Why did you butcher those people?
David: Because it was fun!

That’s welcome, but the bigger problem with the ending is that it wheels out the tired psycho trope. The hitherto unseen David, the 2024 Bierko and Jane’s betrothed, has become unhinged through overuse of the VR and developed a taste for killing within it, as Hall (hence Douglas’ blackouts). It’s the least imaginative direction to take – albeit based on the source material – in an up-until-that-point keenly configured plot.

Even then, it isn’t all rote, as Jane herself has manoeuvred her abusive husband into a position where Dennis Haysbert’s Detective McBain guns him down. We’ve already seen, with Ashton, that when Whitney is killed in the 1937 VR, it is his avatar who revives in 1999. That’s a reasonably solid twist (again, derived from the source material), but I’m not so sure about the theory that Jane’s the only one who knows about the up-levelling of avatars on death. Indeed, it seems inconceivable that, with thousands of simulations and more users, one didn’t die “in game” before and the consequences were revealed.

There’s another issue with The Thirteenth Floor, less severe than it might have been with a less solid plot, and that’s Bierko’s resolute blandness in the lead role. He has that rather interchangeable Ron Livingstone/ Brendan Fraser quality whereby he can pass through a movie virtually unnoticed despite playing the lead. Fortunately, he’s surrounded by a strong supporting cast. In particular Mol, something of a next big thing at the time who never quite cracked it. Her pleading with a disconsolate Hall that he does have a soul despite being an avatar is almost enough to persuade you of the entirely indeterminate Bierko.

Ashton: Why are you putting us through this? Why are you fucking with our minds?

Which means that the picture is ultimately less about who controls our prison (The Matrix, Dark City), than the existential trauma that results from it. McBain, who has evidently been given the lowdown by Jane at some point, only has an interest in the status quo, as one might expect from a hardboiled detective (“Just leave us all alone down here, will you?”; the major clue that 1999 is not real, long before it’s broached, is that McBain strolls around in a fedora).

The sensitive Whitney, before he has even entered the simulation, protests Hall’s intention to shut it down: “These people are real. They’re as real as you and me. You can’t just pull the plug and go home”. Hall himself is entirely despondent on realising the truth, that “None of this is real. If you pull the plug, I disappear, and nothing I ever say, nothing I ever do, will ever matter”. Later, he mocks Ashton’s rage at being used (“I’m just like you. I’m just a bunch of electricity”).

That the picture takes time to account for the avatar’s point of view might be seen as a case of predictive programming, elevating the value of AI to (and beyond) human status, but I think the attention given is rather stressed in spiritual terms (the possession of a soul), and so more focussed on ourselves and our own identities, and certainties or lack thereof (some of Ashton’s questions are the same ones you’d ask of an unfair or reckless creator being).

Armin Mueller-Stahl appears, as an avatar having sex with avatars. D’Onofrio is expectedly strong at playing both nerd and psycho (both sides of Private Pyle, then). Shiri Appleby shows up as a chorus girl (the same year she snagged a lead in Roswell High) and Alison Lohman is another of Mueller-Stahl’s girls. Notably, Roland Emmerich was a producer, representing more cerebral fare than usual.

Can we learn anything from The Thirteenth Floor’s future vision? Well, in LA 2024 (June 21 to be precise) crime is at an all-time low. And there are buildings out of a 50s SF novel cover. So maybe there’s something to look forward to after all. That 29% RT score ought to chafe, because it’s entirely unfair. The Thirteenth Floor is no masterpiece, but it’s as least as interesting as its fellow reality-scrambler Dark City.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.