Skip to main content

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.


(SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Some of which, one might reasonably assert, is simply down to the limitations of a cast of non-professional actors. Unsurprisingly, Nolan comes armed with a strong premise – his protagonist develops a “pastime” of following strangers around and develops a set of rules to ensure it never becomes dangerous – but I suspect, in part, it’s his savvy of coming up with a twist that got Following noticed. This was, after all, the period of The Usual Suspects, Seven, 12 Monkeys and L.A. Confidential, when pulling the rug from under the viewer had an “artistic”, rather than merely crude, gimmicky (M Night is just around the corner) cachet. With its narrator/flashback structure, Following appears to be mimicking Bryan Singer’s film, in particular (or rather, Christopher McQuarrie’s screenplay).

Our lack of understanding of the full picture is crucial to Nolan’s picture, even as our omniscient narrator knows – or thinks he knows – what is going on “now”. Albeit, while Nolan starts off with the apparent intention to deliver a straight recounting of events, he quickly succumbs to leaping about the place in his attempts to keep the viewer off balance; this would be far more successful in his next picture, where it is intrinsic to the character, rather than simply a tricksy device.

Bill: It was supposed to be completely random. And when it stopped being random, that’s when it started to go wrong.

Bill/Daniel (Jeremy Theobald) begins following Cobb (Alex Haw), who notices his tail and confronts him; Cobb reveals his not dissimilar deviancy. He is a burglar, but rather than seeking to make a packet, his interest is in the lives of his victims, determining their characters and making choices on the scene that will disrupt their lives (beyond simply violating their property). He attempts to make it sound as if he is performing a public service, putting his victims in touch with what they had and their priorities. He successfully inveigles Bill, who becomes involved with one of their targets, the Blonde (Lucy Russell). Bill agrees to help her out with regard to a blackmail situation, but during his theft of the evidence on her, he beats a man with a claw hammer.

The twist reveal is that Cobb and the Blonde have been working together to implicate Bill in a burglary committed by Cobb – whereby Cobb claims he found a murdered woman at the scene of one of his break-ins – but this in turn gives way to a further reveal that Cobb has been lying to the Blonde too, such that Bill will be implicated in her murder. While the first of these twists is neat enough, the second isn’t altogether satisfying. The Blonde being duped follows on too quickly from the revelation that Bill has been to have much impact, and the policeman (Nolan’s uncle John) seems remarkably open-and-shut in his attitude towards a man who would surely be very stupid to turn himself in and concoct a story in the hope it dissuaded them of all the evidence pointing at him.

The biggest problem is performative, though. Nolan isn’t known for his movies’ carrying much emotional import or weight, and Following starts as he means to go on. That’s usually more excusable for his getting in skilled actors to emote the blanks, though. There’s no such luck here. Haw is okay being a smug know-it-all; his traversing such scenes as being happened upon by a returning flat owner and the same person appearing during lunch are among Following’s best. But Theobald is quite stiff, such that the overall effect is one of an intellectual exercise rather than a strong movie in its own right.

Nolan clearly enjoys his Russian doll of revealed perception, or deception, and its notable that Bill will attempt to change his persona – dressing like Cobb, who shares a name with DiCaprio’s character in Inception – in a manner not entirely unlike Batman. The choice of black and white apparently came from practicality – the budget was so low, natural light was the only real option in terms of cinematography – but it adds a degree of stylisation that helps take up some of the slack.

Given Nolan’s attempts to show his auteur-ish cred subsequently, however, it’s sobering that two other, very different stylists hit the ground running the same year – Darren Aronofsky with Pi and Guy Ritchie with Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels – something that rather underlines Nolan’s major strength as a conceptualist rather than as a visual craftsmen (I’ve said this numerous times, but for someone who focuses on the action genre, his martialling of spatial geography is not so hot at all).

I’m sure Nolanites will venerate Following as the triumphant start to a career that is now encroaching on the quarter of a century mark. I’d suggest all the elements, good and bad are there nascently, but it remains very much a minor work, and its main idea – the voyeuristic angle – is actually more interesting than the place he takes it (a more standard-issue framing twist).

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.