If you missed the introduction to this week’s posts, go here and for part 2, click here. We continue our look back at the first nine Christopher Nolan films the order of my preference for them to try to get an understanding of what to expect from Tenet. Yesterday we took a look at two parts of the Batman Trilogy. Today we take a look at his first 2 full length features. Ranking these two is very hard and I hold them in virtually identical esteem. Both of these films are very good, and from here on out, we will be running out of things to criticize. AS ALWAYS THERE WILL BE MASSIVE SPOILERS TO THESE FILMS.
Number 6: Insomnia
Release date: 5/24/2002
Main Actors/Actresses: Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, and Robin Williams
Best Sneaky Guest: Paul Dooley (especially if you liked Strange Brew)
What is it about? Relative to his first movie, this is a standard tale of revenge, manipulation, and deceit. Al Pacino plays a washed up, big time LA detective facing significant discipline for his crimes back in LA. He is sent to Alaska to get the heat off of him for the time being. He is investigating the murder of a teenager at the hands of an unknown assailant. Hilary Swank plays the green detective assigned to assist/keep an eye on him. Very quickly Pacino shows that his detective skills are substantial. He quickly ascertains clues and leads that had escaped the local police. Along the way, he is teaching (with a little bit of look-what-I-can-do) Swank’s young officer how he does it. Pacino has not come alone however. His partner is also there with him, and reveals in the early stages that he intends to tell the truth to investigators about what happened with Pacino back in LA. Pacino struggles to find sleep with the 20 hour days (and mounting personal problems), and quickly shows signs of insomnia. After luring the unknown assailant to a location, the police close in, only to find fog everywhere. The suspect escapes through the fog, wounding an officer with a gun. In the fog, Pacino thinks he sees the suspect (or does he) and takes a shot. As he gets closer he realizes he has shot his partner. Instantly knowing he will be blamed for intentionally shooting his partner, he begins the process of hiding that he was the one who did it. That evening he switches out the slug for a different one. The killer has seen the shooting, however. He contacts Pacino, now increasingly sleep deprived and despondent, and tells him he wants to make a deal. Pacino figures out that the killer is a local author played by Robin Williams. After a series of interactions, Williams outsmarts Pacino and has shifted suspicion to the victim’s former boyfriend. After returning to the scene, a very intuitive Swank (her skills belying her greenness) spots a spent casing from Pacino’s gun, which conflicts with both Pacino’s report and what was found. She heads off to see Williams for more information, as her suspicion of him his risen. Knowing Williams will kill her, Pacino races against time to save her. Eventually, in a final showdown at William’s lakehouse, both Pacino and Williams are fatally wounded. Knowing that Pacino is guilty of shooting his partner, but also wanting to protect his reputation to prevent murderers from going free, she offers to hide evidence. Seeing how things turned out has changed Pacino; however, who directs her not to follow down his path.
Why does it work? The centerpiece of the whole movie is Pacino, which was a risky gambit. A washed out actor without a meaningful performance in many years (since Heat in 95) or much since frankly, Pacino would not have been on my list for the part. However, Pacino soars in a role that would seem to capitalize on his position in the acting world. As the washed out, crooked cop with good intentions, Pacino’s ragged performance grows stronger as his character gets weaker. In what is VERY rare for Pacino, he plays a fairly subtle and nuanced approach, staying within himself and letting the layout and dialogue do the work. Swank also shines here as the green detective with a conscience who is more clever than Pacino realizes. While the other officer’s are portrayed as bumbling, she shows intelligence, passion for her work, and willingness to check her biases. Her character is probably the strongest and best written female character that Nolan has had, which is a low bar, but still very enjoyable here. Williams is the gem of the movie. He provides a side of himself that has never been seen as the deeply troubled, wickedly intelligent and unhinged Finch. He shows off a ruthless cunning that one would not expected from someone so relentlessly funny. Looking back now and knowing what we do about his own inner turmoil, it is not as surprising that he was capable of accessing the darker side of things. Ultimately the performances are what make this a great movie. The pieces around them are fairly ordinary even if Nolan’s talent in the little things like lighting and camerawork are present.
What are it’s shortcomings? The script is strong, but in a very traditional sense. This movie does not have Nolan’s traditional flair for time or grandiose visions of the human condition. This is probably because he didn’t write it. This is his only film he did not write, and it is a curious decision. Regardless, the plot is very strong and tight. The vistas are incredible, but the sets are simple and the action is limited. Much like his first film, Memento, he does not have the budget, sets or extended run of his future films. Combining that with the fact he didn’t write it, and Hans Zimmer did not do the music, this feels almost nothing like a Nolan movie. Were it not from the great performances by his leads, this would be another run of the mill film like Kiss the Girls or The Bone Collector (not bad movies, but also not great). there is no twist at all, really. This is also very unusual. Really, this project feels like a mercenary situation. I wonder if he agreed to do this as part of deal to do something else, or if he just needed another success to establish his credibility. However it came to be, this is the least Nolan of the Nolan movies.
What would I do different if I was as smart as Christopher Nolan?
I don’t really see anything that would improve the movie itself. It is quality genre fare and the acting performances are outstanding. The cinematography is good. The plot is strong. Ultimately we have just come to expect more from Nolan since this. I am happy we get to have this, but I would go bigger, which he did on his next project (and first with a big budget) Batman Begins.
Best Scene:
Number 5: Memento
Release date: 5/21/2001 (Nolan’s first major film)
Main Actor/Actresses: Guy Pearce, Carrie Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano
Sneaky Guest: Mark Boone Junior (This is only fun if you have seen the TV show The Patriot)
What is it about? Guy Pearce plays a very troubled man who also serves as our view into the story. From the get go, it is very clear he is an unreliable narrator, and the movie uses this classic movie element to aplomb. Along for the ride are two suspicious characters played by Carrie Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano. This film is virtually impossible to explain in a way that makes sense. You really need to just watch it. The film starts with the photo of a man clearly dying. It is in stages of development throughout the film, and you can’t tell who it is until the end. Clearly though, this death is a cornerstone of the film. Guy Pearce’s character has anterograde amnesia and, as a result, loses his memories after 15 minutes. You get to follow his character as he tries to piece together who is responsible for his wife’s death (he believes someone named either Jimmy or John G) and assaulted him (causing the amnesia). He does this by tattooing himself with information and following leads on Polaroids he has kept. In a theme that you will see throughout most of his films, time is manipulated as an element of the story. We see the color sequences of the film in reverse chronology, leading us back to the start of the film, and we eventually see black and white scenes that move forward. As the film unfolds, Pantoliano’s character befriends Leonard to help him. Moss’ character is a suspicious character who is also suspicious of Pearce. She knows he is driving the car of her old boyfriend, and it is clear she knows something is up. Ultimately, his own clues reveal to him that Pantoliano’s character is likely the one who killed his wife. He kills Pantoliano after being manipulated by Moss to think he is the one who killed his wife, but he isn’t. It turns out in the final reveal that Pearce worked with Pantoliano to kill Moss’ old boyfriend, who Pearce believed to be Jimmy G. It turns out that Pantoliano has been using Pearce’s memories for years to have him kill off people for him. After killing Moss’ boyfriend, Pantoliano reveals to Pearce that he is using him, confident Pearce will forget. However, Pearce wisely makes both a tattoo and Polaroid that will make him suspicious of Pantoliano in the future (knowing his real name is a version of John G). By doing this, he starts the cycle that leads to him killing Pantoliano himself with guidance from a very angry Moss. There is one final shocking reveal, however. The audience discovers that Pearce himself killed his own wife by accidentally over-injecting her with insulin. His guilt caused him to fabricate the killing in his own mind as a defense mechanism.
Why does it work? First, even though we are suspicious we are working with an unreliable narrator, it is very tempting to go along with Guy Pearce’s Leonard. The movie’s construction makes us sympathetic by revealing things in chunks Leonard would experience. If it frustrates us, we assume it frustrates him. With a history of movies like Shutter Island, The Girl on the Train, The Usual Suspects, and Fight Club, the Unreliable Narrator™ is one of the better tropes in cinema. As pieces of the complex puzzle unravel, the movie calmly and patiently sets us up to believe Moss’ Natalie is manipulating Leonard, and Pantoliano’s Teddy is the victim. The final reveal flips everything we thought we were building on its head and punishes our earlier desire to trust Leonard. By creating a false reveal and multiple further reveals, it is nearly impossible for someone to identify the resolution of the movie, making it one of the very best twist movies you can see. Pearce, Moss, and Pantoliano all play their parts well (not necessarily incredibly). The movie doesn’t have much else in the way of secondary characters and this is truly a film without any real B plot, which is rare. The tension created by the slow reverse reveals ramps up so well that you are held in attention regardless. It becomes a series of micro movies with sequels all of which uncover the “truth”. Just by it’s nature the film is truly an original concept, and you will be hard pressed to find something that even remotely resembles it. Here is a chart that represents the way the movie is laid out.
The soundtrack, while not composed by later Nolan muse Hans Zimmer, is still excellent and the tonal changes for forward and reverse segments are a nice touch.
What are it’s shortcomings? That is hard to say. Nolan has neither the budget (with lower priced actors and very few of them), his typical stunts, grandiose set pieces, nor stunning visuals. This movie feels very tight, and the locations are extremely limited. In this way it differs from basically every Nolan movie. This isn’t really a criticism, it is just different, and I would not say it is the most emblematic movie of his style. The chaos of watching the movie unfold is difficult to experience, especially if you have anxiety like I do. If you want to just sit back and enjoy a film, this is not the one for you. It requires rapt attention and is very intense. The end reveals are so stacked and sudden that you hardly process one reveal before there is another. In a sense this takes away some of the shock value (if you are struck by lightning four times in two minutes, the last couple shouldn’t really be a surprise). Yet each reveal is earned, and fits the story and character. It just doesn’t fit what we want. None of the characters are sympathetic at the end, and any hopes you have of leaving the film feeling good are burned to the ground. Nothing here is redeemable. Other Nolan films since have always had something or someone redeemable to latch onto, which also makes this unique.
What would I do different if I was as smart as Christopher Nolan?
What this movie is missing is really what he didn’t have. High level actors, an increased budget, and an inspiring ending. I doubt there is much he would change if he could go back, and I am not sure what effect changes would have. All I can say is, this is more of a David Fincher movie than a Nolan movie in my mind. It is still awesome though: to see Nolan do a David Fincher style movie. This movie reveals only pieces of the director he would become. To suggest a change is really to suggest he do a different movie.
Best Scene:
I have put Memento on my to watch list.... Great reviews.