Skip to main content

White nights getting to you?

Insomnia
(2002)

(SPOILERS) I’ve never been mad keen on Insomnia. It’s well made, well-acted, the screenplay is solid and it fits in neatly with Christopher Nolan’s abiding thematic interests, but it’s… There’s something entirely adequateabout it. It isn’t pushing any kind of envelope. It’s happy to be the genre-bound crime study it is and nothing more, something emphasised by Pacino’s umpteenth turn as an under-pressure cop. 

Actually, it was only Al’s fifth cop (out of eight, by my count), but there’s a lot of frustration and stress packed into those previous four (most of it in Sea of Love, come to think of it). Which means that, even though he hasn’t actually played a weary, insomniac cop before, or one who shot his partner on purpose (and if it wasn’t on purpose, why did he so thoughtfully use his back-up weapon...?), there’s something a little too familiar about the whole arrangement. Harrison Ford was apparently considered – about the time he mulled a lot of less likely parts before inevitably opting to protect the brand – which might have been interesting… no, let’s face it, he’d given up caring by then.

Nolan wrote the final draft of Hillary Seitz’s screenplay, based on the 1997 Norwegian Stellan Skarsård starrer, and if this Clooney/Soderbergh production – as about as necessary as Soderbergh’s Solaris remake the same year – was one the director was pursued for, it’s easy to see why he agreed, aside from representing a reasonably sized Hollywood calling card. The themes of perception/deception, delusion/illusion, subjective reality and the blurred line between antagonist/protagonist are all present and correct.

Nolan even furnishes his own puzzler for audiences, something still debated two decades on and about the only element of the picture that succeeds in stirring a strong response (albeit a characteristically mental, rather than emotional one). My sense – from what’s onscreen – had always been that Pacino’s Will Dormer, in pursuit of a suspect (who turns out to be Robin Williams’ author Walter Finch), shoots his partner Hap Eckhart (Martin Donovan) on a fog-shrouded beach intentionally.

The precise circumstances aren’t explicit – we’re given a point of view that Dormer’s sight of the target is unclear – but I could see no other good reason why (a) he didn’t issue a warning and (b) as noted above, he opted to use his backup gun rather than the one he was carrying. Will had earlier taken exception to Hap informing him he would take a plea with Internal Affairs – in particular, relating to a case where Will planted evidence to gain a prosecution – and this appeared to confirm he’d do anything necessary in pursuit of his version of justice (his ultimate utilitarian take being that he does more good than harm, so taking Hap out is permitted to that end).

Others have interpreted the scene differently, with the Wiki synopsis even stating – I know, Wiki, right, bastion of truth – that Will shoots Hap accidentally. Some believe him to be out of bullets, while others assert we can hear clicking, indicating his main weapon has jammed, but there’s clearly no consensus (the last post in this thread seems as close as any I’ve seen to a thorough analysis, and beside the point about Hap clearly believing Will did it purposefully, there’s the thematic point of Walter arguing both he and Will committed their action “accidentally”; what Walter says is clearly positioned as untrue.

It’s untrue for Walter and it’s untrue for Will, and I don’t think Nolan is attempting to suggest only Walter is victim to self-deception (if nothing else, Walter proves remarkably perceptive of Will’s psychology throughout). Indeed, when it comes to Will’s confession (to Maura Tierney’s Rachel) regarding IA (“So the end justifies the means. Right?”) and then to Elli (“… he was... he was afraid of me. And the thought I meant to do it. So… maybe I did. I just don’t know anymore”), I read that as a mind covering its tracks in exactly the same way Walter’s has done, both of them having very purposefully covered things up and laid false trails in order to bury their accidents.

Maybe someone else could have made all this seem essential, but Nolan makes it merely serviceable. There’s just enough of everything to keep Insomnia ticking over and watchable. Just enough disorientation in the visuals and editing (of Will’s perception, of the lack of day and night), and narrative trickery (Walter isn’t seen until past the halfway mark). But for all the atypical culpability of the lead character, elsewhere the movie is awash with familiar tropes, particularly so Hilary Swank’s Ellie Burr, trotting out the Southern ingenue type that would get her a second Oscar for the following year’s Million Dollar Baby; Ellie’s the Will Dormer avid fan who has a rude awakening when her diligent detective work uncovers the truth about her idol.

And if Walter seems like a departure for Williams, as a psycho, it’s more evident the same mannerisms that made him a frequently uncomfortable dramatic lead – a certain shifty nervousness and ill-at-ease, pained quality showing through whenever the motormouth subsided – are being called upon, so it isn’t actually much of a revelation. More interesting is seeing him as a character who is unintimidated in the face of Pacino’s fireworks.

We see enough of Will’s detective technique to make it clear he’s a more than capable cop, but also more than enough to underline – if killing his partner weren’t enough – that he isn’t a very nice one. Whether it’s haranguing the – also not very nice – boyfriend of the victim (“You’re just a little prick in a leather jacket!” exclaims the latter, quite accurately) or freaking out her slutty pal – also not very nice – in a high speed near collision, he succeeds in displaying behaviour that confirms his less than heroic acumen. Most revealing is his dislike of being dictated to by the killer or hoodwinked by the same, as borne out during an interrogation scene; rather than a shootout, the more interesting ending might have been Will’s turning himself in out of pride, refusing to allow Finch to maintain the upper hand in the only way he knows can succeed.

In terms of the Nolan-verse, though, Insomnia simply doesn’t offer a sufficiently colourful spin. What’s he asking here? What’s he imparting? Everything is a grey area, and it’s easy to be led. Even the noble and true Ellie is willing to bury the truth, convincing herself of an official version until Will, divested of any need to pretend any longer, dissuades her. There are no good guys, so don’t assume there are. Anyone, given the attenuating circumstances, will manipulate, deceive and self-justify. So too Nolan, carving himself out a niche in the version of the world Hollywood wants portrayed, where it’s easier to condone the unthinkable because the relatable protagonists – versions of “us” – are presented as flawed and culpable. This was the director’s post 9/11 movie, and it focuses on murder as a means to cover up evidence of wrongdoing, and further consequent actions in support of that, shifting the blame to innocent parties; the only part that doesn’t fit the analogy is the perpetrator coming clean, and willing the truth to come out.


Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

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.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989) (SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch , or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins . Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon.  It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy ( Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Bi

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