web
counter
 

Welcome to a World Without Rules

By Drew Morton | Posted Under Underappreciated Gems | Comments (13)



followiff.jpg

First off, to those of you expecting a review of Chinatown (1974) as promised in the hint that was contained in the Blue Velvet (1986) piece, I apologize. Chinatown will be the next film covered in the retrospective. I simply got sidetracked in the wake of Christopher Nolan’s Inception (2010) by the auteur completest in me, demanding that I actually sit down and watch Following (1998). While it didn’t reach the heights of Memento (2000) or Insomnia (2002), the latter of which is perhaps Nolan’s most overlooked and underestimated film due to its remake status, I very much enjoyed his rough and ragged debut (which is allegedly up for both the Criterion treatment and a theatrical re-release thanks to his most recent success—-in the meantime you can catch it on Netflix Watch Instantly).

The film is bare, cut and dry almost to the point of The Limey (1999), beginning with a young struggling writer (Jeremy Theobald) who has developed a strange habit in order to flesh out his literary creations. In order to indulge his creativity, or so he claims, the writer follows absolute strangers around London. Men, women, it doesn’t matter, nor is it “a sex thing” he tells us. As his hobby becomes an obsession, the writer develops a set of rules. First, never seek out a subject; the person being followed should be selected at random. Second, do not tail women who walk into dark alleys. Finally, don’t follow the subject for too long.

The writer informs us, via voice-over (we later find out there are three alternating timelines), that the rules quickly grew to his disliking. Breaking them, he tails a well-dressed man (Alex Haw) to a café. The man, who calls himself Cobb, quickly takes note of the writer’s presence and sits down next to him, demanding to know why he has been followed. The writer, at a loss of words, learns that Cobb is a casual thief; he breaks into people’s homes and focuses on taking their most personal items (photographs, letters) in order to make the victims realize how much they take their belongings for granted. As Cobb states, “You take it away and show them what they had.” Soon, the writer finds himself as Cobb’s accomplice and they break into a woman’s (Lucy Russell) flat. Her flat is filled with photos of herself, causing both men to comment on her beauty and to ponder her lifestyle: She’s vain or she’s a model. Both men put their money on the latter and the writer decides, breaking his rule again, to follow her.

Soon after, the writer meets up with the woman in a bar and they develop a relationship. As the writer soon discovers, the woman is the moll to a gangster and pornographer (Dick Bradsell) who is blackmailing her with incriminating photos. She encourages the writer to break into the gangster’s safe to retrieve the photos. This being both a neo-noir and a Christopher Nolan film, you can probably already guess that the characters’ motivations aren’t what they appear to be and that the juggling of timelines will climax in a reveal.

That said, one can clearly trace the seeds of Nolan’s narrative and stylistic pre-occupations in Following. The film, as already mentioned, makes use of non-linear editing in order to produce the mystery that provides the driving force for the film. Yet, what struck me, no doubt aided by the fact that both Following and Inception feature a character named Cobb, is the role of rules in Nolan’s films and how breaking them can have dire consequences. That said, for those of you who have not seen Following, Memento, The Prestige (2006) or Inception, I’d encourage you to ignore the next two paragraphs.

In Following, Memento, and Inception, the protagonists establish rules for themselves in order to function. While I’ve already described the writer’s rules above, Leonard (Guy Pearce) in Memento can only function through the habits and routines outlined by his photographs and tattoos. Cobb (Leonard DiCaprio) of Inception requires a totem to determine his position in either the “real world” or a dream, encouraging Ariadne (Ellen Page) to produce her own (you can’t use the totems of others) and to never disclose the design of the dream worlds to him, as it will compromise the operation. Yet, the protagonists of each film break the rules: The writer seeks out Cobb and deliberately follows the woman, Leonard manipulates the objective truth of the photographs and tattoos he surrounds himself with, and Cobb uses the totem of his dead wife and tells Ariadne the layout of the third dream level. These infractions often lead to the downfall of the protagonists. The writer positions himself as the sap in a murder plot, Leonard puts himself on the tracks of a murderous Möbius strip, and Cobb, well, we’re never sure where the hell Cobb is.

For Nolan the filmmaker, having his characters break the rules sometimes adds characterization but, at its worst, it can also be illogical and frustrating. For instance, in Inception, the implications of Cobb’s breaking of the rules would mean that he’s been in a dream the entire film. So what are we to take away from the film if that’s the meaning? (Note: I didn’t hate Inception but a second viewing disclosed holes in the logic of the rules.) In The Prestige, Nolan establishes a world in which magicians repeatedly tell us that there’s no such thing as actual magic and yet the climax proves otherwise, which feels like a bit of a cheat. Following is not without its Achilles’s heel; the set-up is contingent on the writer following the woman and starting a relationship with her, begging the question “What if he hadn’t?” In short, I’ll allow Nolan’s characters to break their own rules as long as their consequences do not infringe on the rules that have been established between the filmmaker and the audience. I don’t mind to think or play the game; I just don’t want to feel cheated afterward. For all the chatter about rules in his films, they often feel like a means of misdirection, which can be equally productive and infuriating. Sometimes, I wish Nolan would embrace the logic of his Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.

This may sound like I’m bashing on Nolan. That, however, is not the case, as Memento, Insomnia, and his Batman films (look for a Batman logo buried in Following) are some of my favorite films of the past decade. I’m not even completely criticizing Nolan for using rules as a means of cinematic sleight of hand, which works amazingly in Memento. I just wish he would hand off his puzzles to a logician while they are in screenplay form in order to iron out all the kinks. Logical issues aside, Following exemplified a talent of Nolan’s that I had previously been oblivious to: The man knows how to shoot a film. While Wally Pfister has since taken over for Nolan as a cinematographer and provided both the filmmaker and us as viewers with some stunning compositions, there’s an intimate, poetic filth to the black and white compositions of Following. Acting as his own cinematographer, Nolan imbues the film with a minimalist grit, reminding me of Henri Decaë’s work on Bob le Flambeur (1955), Elevator to the Gallows (1958), and The 400 Blows (1959). That’s no small complement for a filmmaker who has, over the course of a decade, made us aware of his many other talents.

The Summer 2010 Neo-Noir Retrospective:
Blue Velvet
Bound
Devil in a Blue Dress
Hard Eight
The Hit
The Limey
The Long Goodbye
Memento
Yesterday Was a Lie

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. His criticism and articles have previously appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the UWM Post, Flow, Senses of Cinema, and Mediascape. He is the 2008 and 2010 recipient of the Otis Ferguson Award for Critical Writing in Film Studies.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Review: Valhalla Rising | Nasty, Brutish, and Short | Now I Am Become Death, The Destroyer Of Worlds | Boom! Irredeemable/Incorruptible : Comic-Con 2010/Brian Prisco









Comments

I just wish he would hand off his puzzles to a logician while they are in screenplay form in order to iron out all the kinks.

YES! I love that Nolan makes movies that have you think. But at the same time, I don't want to think about them too deeply because I don't want to find the holes that I sense itching beneath the surface. That's what happened after I saw Inception. I want to see it again so that I better understand it, yet I don't want to see it again because then I might understand any holes (and holes in movies I really like just make me a sad panda).

I'm so glad you reviewed Following. Once I heard it was Netflix Instant, I was excited and intrigued but I didn't know anything about it. Now I'll definitely check it out. Also, the protagonist slightly reminds me of the narrator in Poe's "Man of the Crowd" ("Man IN? the Crowd"), which I really enjoyed.

Posted by: gee. ay. at July 22, 2010 1:51 PM

INCEPTION SPOILERS


I don't think Cobb changed the 3rd level. He asked Ariadne if there was a back door into the fortress, then directed Eames to it. She protested, but he knew they were running out of time and if she hadn't the mission would have failed. I've only seen it once, but I don't see it as a mistake on Cobb's part. As for using Mal's totem, I think after she was dead he figured it was safe to assume he was in the real world and wanted that connection to her. I don't think he ever doubted "reality" the way Mal did after returning from limbo.

Also, the events in the movie happened and he made it home in reality. Otherwise it was utterly meaningless. I've thought about this one for a while and it's the only explanation that makes any sense thematically.


END INCEPTION SPOILERS

I saw Following years ago, after I first saw Memento. I liked it but found it colder than his other movies. Reminded me of The Croupier (or possibly the other way around) and to my memory both of these movies came out around the same time.

Posted by: TylerDFC at July 22, 2010 2:08 PM

Speaking of spoilers I'm gonna stop reading and come back after I've seen it. This is a compliment, I have a list of your neo-noir at home waiting for me :)

Posted by: SarahReznor at July 22, 2010 2:18 PM

I really need to watch this, again, I barely remember what the reveal is. Mostly, I remember thinking the chronological cut was a better film than the out-of-sequence one. I don't remember why, though...

TylerDFC, thanks for bringing up The Croupier. That should totally be covered in the Neo-Noir Retrospective; it's one of my favorite films of the last 10 or so years.

Posted by: RobP at July 22, 2010 3:39 PM

Speaking of Prestige - I didn't see it as a cheat because I thought he went to pains to explain that it wasn't magic, it was science. Which brings up the whole sci-fi/fantasy and magic versus science comparison, which just means that the film ends with something completely new for you to think about, on top of everything else Nolan just heaped on you.

I love that movie.

Posted by: dsbs at July 22, 2010 3:50 PM

dsbs >> I was going to say exactly that. It wasn't a cheat at all for me - just a very cool genre hybridization in my mind.

As for Following, it's not fresh on my mind. I watched it not long after seeing either Memento or Insomnia. I remember wishing they had gone a little further with the central premise/title, as I thought that was an interesting concept. The actual "following" does not last very long.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 22, 2010 4:10 PM

Following is my favorite of Nolan's films. I know it's a bit rough, but I like the intimacy of just three main characters and there are some wonderful twists in the plot.

Posted by: Judith at July 22, 2010 5:08 PM

Speaking of Prestige - I didn't see it as a cheat because I thought he went to pains to explain that it wasn't magic, it was science.

Did I miss that part? What was the science? Was it like the unexplainable computers-control-planes type of science, or was it more like "It's science, not magic" type of explanation?

Posted by: Brenton at July 22, 2010 5:20 PM

I haven't seen Inception yet, Brenton, but from what I've heard about the movie, let me compare the "science" in Prestige to the "science" in the former:

I saw the machine in the same way as the Inception characters' dream entering device. Some futuristic technology that we don't really need to explain because if we did it would just be with a bunch of made-up words and concepts (aka technobabble) anyway.

And yes, I know the Prestige took place in the past of our timeline.

But anyway, I say Nolan took pains to show that it was science just because Tesla was not a magician, he was a scientist/physicist, and the machine came from him. Every magic trick in that movie had a rational explanation, and in the end, so did Hugh Jackman's ultimate one. I can see how some may see it as a bit of a cheat, because the technology doesn't actually exist, but to me, that just added more layers to the thought-mongering at the end of the movie: doesn't all science look like magic when it is without explanation? Doesn't all magic, despite looking impossible, have to be possible by definition? If "magic" were to exist in the world, the mechanisms by which it worked may be different from the technological reasons why most technology works, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason, it's just a different one.

I'm not really sure if I'm expressing myself coherently at all, but suffice it to say - you probably didn't so much "miss" that part, Brention, we just saw it differently.

DarthCorleone, most of his movies seem to enjoy that hybridization, right? I mean, the Batman movies are comic book movies (sort of fantasy) made real, Prestige is magic and magicians made real, Inception seems like it follows along similar lines, and dammit, I haven't seen any more of Nolan's movies, but as soon as I get my life sorted out, I swear, I'm having a Nolanathon.

Posted by: dsbs at July 22, 2010 6:22 PM

Err, Brenton. Sorry.

Posted by: dsbs at July 22, 2010 6:36 PM

I've killed people for less...

Yah, I guess that does make sense, in an unexplainable kind of way. If he's going to give us an explanation, though, I would like to understand that explanation.

Posted by: Brenton at July 22, 2010 7:09 PM

Also, I think the problem I had was that it was built up as a second climax, as the reveal, but then revealed nothing, whereas the magic technology in other films (I'm guessing Inception, but also Eternal Sunshine, etc) is simply a plot device. It doesn't matter if we know how the technology works to get inside people's dreams, because it's a sidebar, whereas the final reveal should be the big reveal but it's ultimately anticlimactic.

Posted by: Brenton at July 23, 2010 2:52 AM

The Prestige SPOILERS

I didn't think the lightning machine trick was a climactic moment. What got me was the lengths Jackman went to perform the trick, murdering his doubles nightly. Couple that with Bale's trick forcing him (and his twin) to lead a double existence and the movie is revealed to be about mad obsession to pull off the greatest illusion of all time despite the overwhelming cost. The lightning machine is really just a macguffin.

After further reflection I would put Nolan as my current favorite director. He hasn't made a bad one yet, and I love most of his movies. That puts him ahead of other faves Fincher and Del Toro in my book.

Posted by: TylerDFC at July 23, 2010 7:37 AM