Skip to main content

Strange, I always thought switching minds was a utopian joke.

World on a Wire
(Welt am Draht)
(1973)

(SPOILERS) I wasn’t even aware of World on a Wire, chastening as it is to admit, until I revisited The Thirteenth Floor (1999) and discovered that not only was it based on a novel but that it had also been adapted quarter of a century earlier. I’ve seen it suggested that Rainer Werner Fassbender’s two-part TV film wipes the floor with the later Hollywood production, but that isn’t really fair. It certainly boasts the more rudimentary idiosyncrasies of its era, a much more compelling lead performance in its favour, and the chance to breathe more, but both versions are entirely valid and engrossing takes on the source material.

Fred: With Simulacrum we have, in a word, a tiny universe identical to our own.

They also both stick quite closely to the novel, albeit World on a Wire more so. The Thirteenth Floor doesn’t really dig in to the economic rationale for the simulation, while Fassbender runs with Simulacron-3 author Daniel F Galouye’s concept that it would be utilised for marketing research (which is entirely, mundanely plausible). Simulacrum’s application is to “learn consumer habits twenty years from now”, planning and engineering society and demand based on projections: “How housing needs will evolve, which transport modes will become obsolete, and which will be in use”. A subplot concerns a journalist investigating government collusion with private industry (specifically steel), but officially, Simulacrum is designed to ensure a “Better, newer, more equitable and humane world”.

Eva: His power over this artificial world drove him crazy.

In both adaptations, a key figure in the project dies mysteriously (here Adrian Hoven as Professor Vollmer) and another personnel member (Klaus Lowitsch as Fred Stiller) looks into the matter. In both, an inhabitant of the simulacrum – Gottfried John’s Einstein – escapes in the body of a “real” person (Gunter Lamprecht’s Fritz Walfang). In both, this also provides a crucial precedent to main protagonist’s escape to the real real world above. In both, the “daughter” of the dead key figure appears (Mascha Rabben as Eva Vollmer), as if from nowhere, and begins a relationship with the protagonist. And in both, it is revealed that she is from the real real world, and that she really does love the protagonist, because he is a decent version of the man from the real real world who has become corrupted and deranged (and whose body will ultimately enable the protagonist to escape his shackles).

Einstein: I want to be a human being. And I will. This is the first step. I’ll make the next one, too. Into the real world.
Fred: What do you mean, the real world? This is the real world.

World on a Wire is often quite slow moving and has a tendency to drag its heels at times, but where it scores over The Thirteenth Floor is in verisimilitude. Well, relatively. There’s a sense of the mundane and unadorned, despite the “futuristic” 70s version of high-tech. This is a world of mirror views, burnt orange curtains and unvarnished cinematography out of The Sweeney (from Fassbender regular Michael Ballhaus).

All of which goes to make the solipsistic implications of an unreal world that much more acute. The creeping sense of the uncanny, as a trusted colleague disappears before Fred’s eyes and then – even more alarmingly – no one else has any recollection of his existence is precisely the kind of overwriting that underpins theories regarding the Mandela Effect (and beyond any Hadron colliding manipulation, it might suggest such effects support a simulation reading of our own world).

Fred: Right now, I’m just a bundle of electronic circuits too.

World on a Wire is much keener on digging into and discussing the philosophical implications of simulated worlds than The Thirteenth Floor and has the time to do so. The vanishing Lause (Ivan Desny) leaves behind a drawing of Achilles and the tortoise, one of Zeno’s Paradoxes (designed “to show their hypothesis that existences are many, if properly followed up, leads to still more absurd results than the hypothesis that they are one”). In the case of Achilles and the tortoise, motion is “proved” to be an illusion because no matter how fast he runs after the tortoise, which has had a head start, Achilles will always be behind “since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so the slower must always hold a lead”.

Hahn: Every day you reign like God over a miniature world you helped to create and which you mistake more and more for a real world. You can add and delete people at will.

Fred doesn’t really account for the interior lives of his creations (“To us, they’re mere circuits. But to them… They live just like we do... We’re alive. They’re like people on TV dancing for us”). However, Hahn (Wolfgang Schenk), the Cybernetics and Future Science (Institut fur Kybernetik und Zukunftsforschung – IKZ) psychologist insists that Fred’s God-like power over them is the explanation for his strange experiences. It is his “guilt, depression and fear”. Fred’s offhand instruction to delete simulation unit Christopher Nobody (who aberrantly attempted suicide) leads to regret when he is unable to interrogate him about his realisation that he lived in a fake world (Einstein, the “contact” they need in the artificial world, insists he did not tell him of the artifice).

Einstein: Don’t send me back. It’s my only chance.

Fred becomes increasingly desperate when Einstein reveals a truth he never even suspected, that there is another world above his own. “The people in the simulation model think their world is the only real one” holds as true for him as it does for his “units”. In the second part, Fred begins to theorise that the methodology above must reflect their own for dealing with inconsistencies: “It has to look like an accident – so other units don’t suspect. The system remains stable”. Thus, there must be an Einstein in their world (as it turns out, there is not; Eva tells him “I’m the projection of a real Eva from the real world. We don’t have contact units anymore” because they were “a mistake”).

Fred: I can’t be alone in thinking that nothing really exists.

The second part spends much of its time preoccupied with a man-on-the-run plot, as Fred is pursued in an attempt to frame him for murder (like The Thirteenth Floor, there’s a tendency for the security/detectives to wear anachronistic hats, perhaps a giveaway that the real world is not what it seems). There’s an amusing conversation in a bar with Hahn, in which the illusory nature of their surroundings is discussed (“The real cigarettes are somewhere else. Where real people sit on real chairs. Is that a chair?”) Glitches in the matrix are also discussed (“And what would a glitch be like?”)

Eva: You’ve become a bit too intelligent for us.

Fred, unlike his fellow units, has been allowed to retain awareness of the changes occurring in his reality. The real Fred is “playing games with you” and “didn’t want to kill you right away” because he takes “enormous pleasure from your fear, and your despair”. This results in the most anomalous sequences, as Fred experiences aural and physical side effects. The discordant electronica is out of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop at its most experimental, and at times mashes up with classical music for extra dissonance. Fred suffers dizzy spells – “You get them when he tries to hook up with your mind” – that would presumably explain the odd scene in the first episode where, after asking for a light, he leaps out of the way as the woman he spoke to is crushed by falling concrete. Upon which, he casually takes a lighter from the body and sparks up his cigarette. It’s almost a non sequitur of the sort we’d expect in Philip Martin’s Gangsters. Later, a tree attempts to topple on him and a dog appears out of nowhere (which Fred shoots).

Eva: When I appeared you very quickly threw together a memory. That’s how simulation units are.

Unlike The Thirteenth Floor, there’s no – brief – suggestion of a third layer of reality above Eva’s world at the conclusion, but World on a Wire nevertheless creates a much more potent air of lingering unease due to its stylistic minimalism. And then there’s the use of Fleetwood Mac’s Albatross over the credits, which somehow serves to underline the point: of almost nonchalant disturbance beneath the surface. For all the gloss of The Matrix, if we are living in a simulated world, it undoubtedly bears most resemblance to the one in World on a Wire. Give or take a few decades.


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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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

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.

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.