• If the thought-sucking monster was able to determine that Bodhi, the pilot, was telling the truth about defecting from the Empire, then why did Saw Gerrera still suspect that Jyn and others had been sent to kill him? Wouldn’t he have learned the truth from the monster? What exactly did the monster do to the pilot?
• Was that a giant statue of a Jedi collapsed into the sands outside Jedha? Was Jedha a home for Jedi? Is the name “Jedha” supposed to signify that? Are the Jedi viewed as legends? Rogue One takes place about 20 years after the events depicted in Revenge of the Sith. Have the Jedi been turned into mere rumors in that time? How could a force that served as “the guardians of peace and justice” for “over a thousand generations” become so forgotten so quickly?1
• What was the point of staging a prologue to set up Galen Erso’s flight from the Empire and Jyn’s subsequent abandonment if those events would just be repeated in visuals and dialogue later in the film?
• Why does Darth Vader live by himself in a tower above a river of lava on what’s apparently an otherwise barren planet? Isn’t he a pretty important figure to the Empire? What’s more, how could the film so drastically misjudge the tone and place of his character? At the outset of Star Wars, Vader is an imposing commander but essentially a lackey of Grand Moff Tarkin. Other Imperial commanders openly mock him and his belief in the Force, as well as his confidence in the Death Star. Tarkin’s able to command him with ease. Vader’s role as someone to fear and cower before wasn’t increased until The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, as he took a greater role in overseeing the Imperial’s efforts against the rebels.
Darth Vader’s first appearance in Star Wars is a menacing one, and his strength is made clear when he lifts a man up by the throat with one hand. But his displays of what could be called “Force power” are limited: he chokes a disrespectful Imperial commander (only to be called off by Tarkin), he engages in a brief lightsaber duel with his old master, and he proves to be a decent pilot who senses the Force in Luke Skywalker. In Rogue One, though, Vader is cartoonishly powerful, smashing through things and throwing people with the Force in a way he never does again. How are we to reconcile this swift-moving, hotheaded villain with the one who will emerge minutes later into the opening of the first Star Wars? Did no one involved with making Rogue One stop to think that this kind of thing would be jarring? Or did they simply not care? Even when he uses the Force to choke someone here, it’s not to make a point (e.g., that the Force is real and should be respected), it’s just to be petty. And he caps it off with two puns in one sentence, growling, “Do not choke on your aspirations.” Who is this even supposed to be?
• Not a single thing here feels original or interesting. That’s not to say there wasn’t potential to tell an interesting story about a suicide mission during a war, and there’s plenty of cinematic precedent (The Dirty Dozen, etc.). But there hasn’t been a Star Wars film that pushes the narrative forward and is also creatively original since The Empire Strikes Back.
• Alan Tudyk’s role as the droid K-2SO is a sad bastardization of his role as Wash, the comedic pilot from the short-lived series Firefly and its follow-up film, Serenity. It stinks of desperation, with bad jokes shoved in at odd moments, as if the filmmakers are afraid of people sitting still for 60 consecutive seconds and having their own thoughts.
• What’s the importance or significance of the crystal Jen’s mother gives her as a child? This is, apparently, a kyber crystal, which Jyn expositionally tells another character are used to power2 lightsabers. Kyber crystals are also the fuel the Empire is harvesting for the Death Star’s laser. But what does any of that have to do with the necklace? Jyn’s mother tells her to trust the Force, and the blind aspiring Jedi seems to sense the necklace on Jyn’s person; does the necklace have some kind of, I don’t know, Force resonance or something? Why does Jyn have it? What does it add to the narrative? What would be missing from the narrative if the necklace didn’t exist?
• The blind aspiring Jedi is named Chirrut. His helper/friend is named Baze. I had to look both of those names up after the movie, because I had no idea what they were from the film. That’s a problem.
Why was no effort made to make any of the characters feel remotely real, even as stock archetypes? The names of all Rogue One characters mentioned in this post have been checked against IMDb because I remembered almost none of them, even before the credits rolled.
• The hologram message Galen leaves for Jyn is almost a hilariously rushed exposition dump. You can see Mads Mikkelsen working to spit out everything before his time is up. That’s a big problem with Rogue One: it relies more on people telling you something happened than on you being able to see it happen. Saw and Jyn’s discussion of their time together has the same false ring. Are we to understand that he abandoned her? They were in some army together? How did that abandonment play into Jyn’s father issues?
• There are so many desperate, cloying attempts to remind people of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back that it feels as if some basic law of storytelling has been violated. The ugly, angry guy from the Mos Eisley cantina shows up here to bump into someone and threaten them. The hatch Jyn lifts herself through is copied from the Millennium Falcon, specifically a shot at the end of Empire.
• Genuinely interesting idea left thoroughly unexplored: Galen Erso’s decision to become a collaborator with the Empire so that he could build a weakness into the Death Star, and what it means to make a moral judgment to become an accomplice in the murder of millions in hopes of saving billions. Can you imagine that weight? More importantly, can you imagine an intelligent thriller that reckons with that weight?
• It’s tough to feel any of the suspense the movie clearly wants you to feel, since we already know the plans are going to be successfully stolen and transmitted to the rebels. The mounting number of complications (hook up that thing! now climb that thing! move that other thing!) are just kicking the can down the road in an attempt to draw out the sequences and make it feel more robust. When the ending isn’t in doubt, the story has to be about the people, and what they’re experiencing. That was almost nonexistent.
• Why on earth is Peter Cushing, who died in 1994, resurrected via CGI for this film? Could no one think of a story that didn’t involve his Tarkin character? Did no one stop to think about the oddness of having a CGI human walking around through the frame? The franchise is, obviously, no stranger to special effects, and its human actors have been talking to puppets, green screens, and CGI creations for 40 years now. But there’s a vast difference between an alien created by animation and that animation’s attempts to want us to believe that the human being standing before our eyes is a real one, not a ghastly cartoon. Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea? How on earth can disbelief be suspended this much? Similarly, why was that abominable treatment used to render a young Carrie Fisher? Did no one, at any point, understand how uncomfortable and weird and sad this would look?
• Was there, at some point, a better movie here? While movie trailers are never wholly representative of the movies themselves, and while it’s common for trailers to include things that don’t make the final cut, the discrepancy between the trailer’s description of the plot and characters and the film’s depiction of same is jarring. The trailer featured, among other things, the shot of Jyn in a stormtrooper outfit in a tunnel designed to evoke The Empire Strikes Back; the TIE fighter rising up to meet her as she walked across scaffolding; Saw’s lines about “what will you become”; the whole “I rebel” thing. Things seemed to be fundamentally different at some point. Director Gareth Edwards has also said that the film’s reshoots more than tripled the number of effects shots, which would track with a corporate desire to bludgeon people into acceptance of a franchise instead of offering them a potentially challenging but rewarding story.
• The film’s decision to end in the minutes before the beginning of the first Star Wars film—indeed, to essentially staple its plot onto that one—is another potentially interesting idea that feels cheap and manipulative. This is a film, after all, that relies heavily at every turn on reminding viewers about older movies. By grafting itself onto the film that started it all, it’s essentially trying to borrow that film’s iconography and staying power, instead of finding some for its own. It is not an accident that so many people enjoyed that sequence: it was a re-enactment of something they already liked.
Come to think of it, how could they slip back into rumor again 30 years later, by the time of The Force Awakens?↩
Trump is a xenophobic, misogynistic, lying, venom-spewing representation of cruelty run wild.
Hillary Clinton is a little stiff on camera.
Yep, those are definitely the same kind of problems, kudos to the baby boomers who wail about two equally bad choices, you are right, you are so right, I pray that you live long lives that we may have your insight in our lives for just that much longer, you shining beacons of the best of us.
Fathers of daughters, shed upon me the light of your wisdom that so praises a man who would grab your daughter’s groin by force.
Mothers of sons, impart to me the worldview that turns rape into equivocation and bigotry into differences of opinion.
You sad angry creatures, crawling in the dirt in fear of a God you’ve turned into a bully, you find yourselves cowering before a tyrant because separatism and destruction are what you believe we all deserve.
You fearful insecure wretches, crawling toward the dark heat of someone else’s anger, thrusting your hands into the black flames for warmth, praying to a God you’re scared of to make things OK.
You hypocrites, you who boast about not wanting to vote, you who wear your ignorance with pride, you who forfeit your chance to change the world and then bitch, bitch, bitch when the world does not conform to your dreams, what did you expect.
You scariest and most unknowable of all, you people who welcome hatred and separatism and discord, who conflate conflict with oppression, who want to burn the house down in order to save the field, you who wish destruction upon us all simply because you want a change of scenery—I do not know what to do; I am weighed down, struck dumb, by what’s roiling inside you.
I grew up in a denomination of fear and shame and self-loathing, of dogma fetishized at the expense of real people, of grace shouted down by subordination, so it’s not like I don’t understand the bone-deep appeal of listening to a hateful man tell you that you are right and The World is wrong and out to persecute you—swap in some top 10 verses for assertions about the sexual crimes of immigrants, and you’ve basically got every church camp I ever attended.
But in the paraphrased words of Dr. King, fuck that hateful shit right to the curb and back.
This is not a difference of opinion, or an instance where educated people of different political or spiritual worldviews might reasonably find themselves supporting different candidates for office.
This is a bayonet fight in the trenches of no man’s land, and there can be no quarter given to those who preach hate and intolerance and division.
You want the universe’s moral arc to bend toward justice, you better start pulling on that bar and bending it with every bone in your hands.
I am Eustace scraping these scales from my arms to bleed, and I feel blessedly farther every day from the shame and self-destruction I was taught, and I am nauseated by the silence of men and women who idolize exclusivity and control and imagine paradise’s doors to be very small.
When you tell yourself that only certain people will be saved, that only certain ones can ever deserve it, then of course you will find yourself taking succor in the words of a man who tells you you were right, that you are special and no one else is.
I feel lakes of pity for people who hold to him, as if he offers the certainty of salvation or freedom, who believe all manner of conspiracy theories about Clinton but ignore the factually documented sins of their own favorite son simply because they would rather be rigid than flexible, fundamentalist than nuanced.
The really sick fucking part of it is how much Trump reminds me of my youth: the certainty, the exclusion, the absolute surety that we had it right and everyone else had it wrong. The homophobia, the xenophobia, the misogyny. The way women got to work in the kitchen but never speak in front of a congregation. The way they could hold and pass a communion tray but not be trusted to walk around and help pass it from row to row, as if this was too much, an affront, a violation of God’s own rules. This background and history of fear and self-hatred, when the only way out seemed to be to hate the enemy more than you hated yourself. The loud declamations, the visceral language, the proclamations. Everything born of anger, which is born of fear. The fear of not being able to do enough. The feeling that mercy was weak and grace nonexistent, something you’d heard about but could never touch or feel. That you could never sit still and feel calm, so the only answer must be to go faster and stay distracted. To never ask the big questions, or any questions. To be cowed, to cower. He is the return of those evil things and divisions I have spent my life running from. And to see people clinging to him makes me wonder if anyone ever gets out alive.
Emma died this morning. She was 14 years old, hewn from steel and fueled by piss and vinegar. She’d beaten death twice already: once when she was 7 and accidentally overdosed on medicine for her early-onset arthritis, and again when she was 12 and had a neural sheath rumor removed from her left rear leg. Nothing stopped her. She experienced a rapid decline in the past few days, and tests showed advanced lymphoma, the treatment for which would be more torturous than she deserved in her state. Every living being has its time, though anyone who’s ever been in that room can tell you that knowing something and living in it are different things.
She was fiercely protective, loving to her family, the definition of loyal. She was stubborn and strong and happy and goofy. Her head was strong as a rock. She would fart in her sleep and wake up confused. She’d been abused as a puppy, before Tracy ever got her, and she didn’t like people touching her head or feet, the psychic wounds from her earlier life never quite disappearing. But she loved us and knew we loved her. If we accidentally bumped her foot, she’d yip out of habit, but then immediately wag her tail and kiss us, apologizing for her overreaction. She knew us and knew our life. She saved my wife’s life and taught me how to care for an animal. (She viewed my arrival seven years ago as a personal boon; she gained an employee, and never let me forget it. I loved it.) She growled at the cats and loved broccoli stalks. She hated the vacuum cleaner and loved to sit by our feet and work on a bone. She loved ear rubs and would groan and dig her head into my hand, then shake her head and pant and kiss my hand and bump her nose into me: again, again.
Emma, Emma Louise, Emmaline Emma Mine, Deedees, Deeds, a dozen more. All those names and songs you use for your pets that exist only within the walls of your home, that become the language that defines your particular life. Ems. No other dog like her. Never has been or will be. She was my pup.
I miss my dog. Most days I try not to think about it, or at any rate, I don’t go looking for ways to think about it. Her absence is most noticeable when I come home from work: instead of being greeted by her, tail wagging, barking for dinner or a treat, I open the door to silence. The first few days after she died, I kept thinking that the pillows on the couch were her head, and I realized I was so accustomed to knowing where she was that my brain was still trying to make the connection with whatever object was nearby. Mornings are probably when I think about her most. I used to get up and feed her before work, along with the cats, and I was accustomed to the routine: let her out to pee, feed her, let her out again to poop, pet her for a bit, hop in the shower, and start my day. On my way out the door, I’d pet her again and tell her: “You stay here, be a good dog, watch the house.” None of that happens now, and even though she’s been gone almost four weeks, my mornings still feel scattered and shortened in ways I can’t really process. I know we’ll eventually get another dog, and it’ll probably (hopefully) be another square-headed goofball with a strong personality. This is the first time I’ve had to do this, though — say goodbye to a pet like this — so I’m still feeling my way uncertainly down the path. I just miss my dog.
Nothing ever replaces a pet after they’re gone. This is something I might have been able to abstractly guess in a different life, but since I’m actually dealing with such losses firsthand, I’m able to appreciate what the idea really means. Specifically, that there’s both joy and sorrow in that recognition. Joy because you know that every animal has its own personality, and that no other pet will ever be quite like it; your memories with them can’t be duplicated. And sorrow because it’s only when you bring a new animal into your life that you realize that the new happiness you feel, the new love, doesn’t close the wound made by the loss of the one that came before. You might think it would, or that it would work as a kind of linear continuum — love a pet, mourn its loss, begin the cycle anew — but the truth is more complicated. Think of each pet’s time as a different story, all of them existing next to each other, like books on a shelf. The happy memories you have of one of them, or the sadness you feel after they’re gone, are separate from the new creature’s experience of you and your life together.
This isn’t a bad thing, either, this bloodied web of feelings we have for the lives we bring into our own. This is what life is. It’s a rich, weird, overwhelming thing. I will never stop loving Emma — my Deeds, my Goofus T. Rufus, my guard dog and alarm clock, my sweet girl — and, though I know the pain will dull with time, I’ll never stop missing her, either. How could I? How could any of us cut loose from ourselves the connections we’d made with a living being? I don’t have to give up that love to love something else. I don’t have to stop talking about her, or thinking of the good and bad times we went through, to care for a new animal. Any attempt to do so would be self-deceptive at best and self-destructive at worst. We are built for relationships, even after they’re over.
About a month after Emma died, Tracy learned about a dog living at the Humane Society. She was, of all things, the same mix of breeds as our Emma — part bull terrier, part blue heeler — but in different proportions. She was shorter, lighter, more squat. We went out to meet the dog one afternoon and were struck by the ghost of Emma. This new dog wasn’t the same of course — she had no compunctions about letting us touch her feet or tail, and her personality was less domineering — but she had a kindness and physical compatibility that reminded us of Ems. We also knew that her chances for adoption were low: she was four years old, where most people wanted puppies or younger dogs; she was heartworm-positive, where most people wanted a dog with a clean bill of health. Having heartworms isn’t a death sentence, but it’s a condition that the Humane Society isn’t equipped to treat: the medication requires the dog to keep a calmer schedule than a shelter, even one as caring and resourceful as the Humane Society, can reasonably provide. Without a home, she would continue living at the shelter, her veins pumping sickness invisibly through her body, until her options had run out. We decided to bring her home for a two-week trial run, which would let us see if she’d acclimate to our house (and cats) and would also let us start to treat her heartworms. And so, six days later, after buying toys and supplies, we went back to the shelter to get her.
Tomorrow marks two weeks since we rescued her, but we knew within a day of bringing her home that we had, indeed, brought her home. She’s ours, in every way. It feels like a restoration to have a dog in the house again, and this one is wonderful. She’s smart and strong, inquisitive and playful. (Probably — well, definitely — more playful than the cats would like.) I see in her the shadow of Emma, and I remember all those experiences even as we make new ones. I feel that fullness. Her first day at the house, she tentatively walked through our backyard, still uncertain of her surroundings. Now she prances from one end to the other, patrolling what has unmistakably become her territory. She’ll clock the mailman through the living room window when he’s still across the street, letting out a low growl and sniffing imperially.
She’s so loving and affectionate, happiest when she’s in physical contact with me or Tracy. Our first night with her, we tried to get her to sleep in her crate, but she didn’t like that at all. We dragged her pillow to the ground next to my side of the bed, and she curled up and went to sleep. In the mornings, when I leave for work, she hops up onto the bed and naps next to Tracy. We learned when we first visited her that she’d been kept outside by a previous owner, who returned her for being “destructive,” not realizing that the dog was lonely and bored. She never has to go through something like that again. She has so much love to give, and she just wants a place to call home. We love her already.
For Musings, I take a look at the trilogy of Jack Ryan movies from the early 1990s, and how they reflected the global politics and action aesthetics of the time. I can now happily check “Get paid to write about The Hunt for Red October” off my bucket list.
For Musings, I wrote about Tender Mercies and The Apostle, in an attempt to examine the intangibility of belief and the challenge of convincingly portraying on film something that looks and feels differently for everyone who experiences it.
I interviewed Justin Cronin for Houstonia magazine. Cronin is the author of The Passage and its sequels, The Twelve and The City of Mirrors, a trilogy of post-apocalyptic literary thrillers that follow a group of people fighting for survival after a deadly plague wipes out most of the world’s population and turns some of its victims into vampiric monsters. We talked for a couple of hours at his place about creativity, how to make a living as a writer, and what kinds of stories get him going. I’m really happy with the resulting feature, and the extended interview is filled with great observations about (among other things) culture, the industry, and how the Cold War shaped Cronin’s personality.
For Musings, I wrote about Samson Raphaelson, a playwright and screenwriter most notable for his nine-film collaboration with Ernst Lubitsch. I discovered Raphaelson after watching the Criterion release of 1943’s Heaven Can Wait, which featured among its extras a thirty-minute PBS documentary about Raphaelson, who was then in his 80s. He came at the screen a man possessed, shaking his hands and extolling the virtue in screenplays of human characteristics above all else. To say I fell somewhat in love would not be inaccurate. He wrote a book called The Human Nature of Playwriting1, drawn from a course he taught in 1948, that’s just as illuminating.
• When we talk about this movie, we’re really talking about Heath Ledger. He died in January 2008, six months before The Dark Knight came out, and though he also appeared posthumously in 2009’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, it’s The Dark Knight that’s considered his true final role.1 His death at such a young age — he was 28 — gave the film’s nihilistic horror an unearthly sheen; it felt, in a sense, like it was his role as the Joker that had taken him away. He’s absolutely stunning in the part, too, in a way that makes everyone else look drab and stilted by comparison. As a character (often historically but especially, and more importantly, within the specific world of The Dark Knight), the Joker is effective because he’s willing to go farther than others to achieve his goals. He has no regard for human life or society’s structures. He murders with glee. Ledger is smart and strong enough to be able to play this insanity as straight as possible. He occasionally bursts into ugly, shrieking laughter, but more often than not he just smacks his lips and blinks a few times and gets on with it. His performance is anchored in a sense of commitment: this Joker, this unnamed and unnameable killer, believes wholeheartedly in the righteousness and purpose of his destructive causes. There’s a look in his eyes as he cavorts around town that says he can’t believe he’s getting away everything, and that he thinks his opponents are laughably dumb. It’s Ledger’s performance that makes the movie, and his acknowledged absence from today’s world that makes it so haunting.
• If Batman Begins spawned imitators who aped that film’s grim tone and heady self-seriousness, The Dark Knight was responsible for popularizing an even more frustrating trend: the villain’s ludicrously complicated plot. Partly this is because The Dark Knight, as a whole, has a much more sprawling plot than the first film. I am writing this the day after rewatching the movie, and honestly I’m still having trouble coming up with a tidy summary. Here’s what I came up with:
Gotham’s mobsters pool their money to avoid it being seized by Batman and the cops, and their accountant — a CEO of a Chinese company — absconds with a money to keep it secure. Batman captures the businessman and puts him in police custody, but the mob wants him, too, so they hire the Joker to get him and reclaim their money. Along the way, the gangsters realize that employing a sociopath of the Joker’s caliber was probably not the wisest course of action, and the Joker starts to consolidate power so that he can provide Gotham City with “a better class of criminal.” Essentially, Batman’s job is to help the cops and D.A. Harvey Dent preserve a semblance of law and order, while the Joker wreaks havoc to his own end.
I think it’s pretty accurate, though I feel like it’s still incorrect on some level I can’t identify. The movie is more of an experience than a story, like a pop version of Malick.
• Now, this is admittedly a little hairier than the plot to Batman Begins, and one far more reliant on the nebulous conflict between opposing points of view than on action motivated by belief. It also features a series of fantastically executed action set pieces that turn out to be part of a plan for the Joker to allow himself to be kidnapped so that he can then break out of the police station with the Chinese businessman he’s been hired to hunt, a plan that sails right past Rube Goldberg and into all-new realms of luck-fueled machinations. The story manages to hang together because of director Christopher Nolan’s energy and sense of pace, but many action movies that followed failed in their attempts to cook up similarly complex plots. Skyfall and Star Trek Into Darkness come to mind: both featured villains who acted out ridiculous, billion-piece plans that made almost no sense.
• The film’s convoluted plot does turn out to hold water, but it also works because it’s a structural reflection of the emotional chaos caused by the Joker. This is, after all, a villain whose m.o. is to destroy social order just to see if he can. Batman Begins took story pieces — a toxic hallucinogen, a conspiracy to poison the water supply, a stolen piece of military equipment — and threaded them together in a loose mystery. It was Batman’s job to solve the mystery and, then, to stop the villains from carrying out their plan. The Dark Knight inverts this: the Joker’s goal is clear from the start, and he even telegraphs his moves by leaving notes in which he names his successive victims. It’s anti-mystery. Batman’s job isn’t to solve the puzzle, but to realize he might not be able to stop it. Indeed, while the first film ends with the death of the villain2, this one ends with the Joker surviving after delivering a speech about how he and Batman are “destined to do this forever.”
• The Dark Knight is demonstrably bigger in scale than Batman Begins — tons of location shooting, multiple scenes filmed in IMAX, a larger plot — but it’s also, in its way, less organized and less believable. Part of what makes Batman Begins so strong is its sense of what it is and what story it wants to tell. The Dark Knight, though, is a moodier meditation on the nature of good and evil, and its a bit shaggier as a result. Still great in many ways, and good in many others. But not quite as finely tuned as its predecessor.
• The Dark Knight makes a big deal out of Batman’s “one rule,” which is that he refuses to kill. The screenplay hammers this pretty hard, in more than few lines of clumsy dialogue that make the subtext into just plain old text. Yet Batman Begins ends with Batman essentially murdering Ra’s al Ghul. They’re locked in a fistfight aboard a runaway elevated train when Ra’s al Ghul realizes that he’s been had and that the train is about to go flying off the track. Batman looks at him and says, “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you,” then opens his cape and flies away. Boom, train careens into the ground, Ra’s al Ghul is presumably crushed to a thin paste. Pretending this somehow qualifies as not killing someone is a cheap move. One of the points of the movie was about Batman realizing the lengths he would need to go to win against a truly committed opponent. His finishing move here is like saying, “I’m gonna hand you this lit stick of dynamite and let you try to extinguish the fuse.” Maybe the guy has a chance to survive, but who are we kidding?
• The dialogue is often weak here. Characters tend to speak in the kind of aphoristic non sequiturs that litter modern action movies. It’s English, but it’s not dialogue, and rarely recognizable as a conversation. The scene in which the Joker visits a disfigured Harvey Dent and tells him to just go out there and start killing people makes almost zero sense on any level: narrative, emotional, linguistic, you name it. Rather, it feels like one of those things that had to happen to let Dent fully transform into Two-Face and go on a brief murder rampage before being subdued by Batman.3 Some of the actors are better at handling these lines than others. Michael Caine is king — Alfred’s story about the crazy bandit who just wanted “to watch the world burn” is perfect — and Maggie Gyllenhaal is good at it, too. But it’s much more a film of visuals and ideas than Batman Begins, which seemed to have a better handle on actual character.
• This is also when Bale’s voice, when in costume as Batman, was amplified with much more rumble and bass than was present in Batman Begins. In the first film, he speaks with a bit more of a growl, sometimes whispered, to disguise his voice and appear intimidating. Here, though, the postproduction manipulation of his voice is unmistakable, and often overdone. Watching the first and second films back to back really highlights the oddness of the change.
• Some of the visuals, though: damn. There are some fantastic compositions here, and they’re paired with smart soundtrack choices that highlight a few spare instruments or sometimes drop the music altogether. Some of the most memorable things about the movie are what feel like stolen moments — Ledger sticking his head out the window of a cop car as it careens down the street is one of those perfect bits of movie poetry.
• The sequences shot in IMAX are, as would be expected with a filmmaker as skilled as Nolan, stunning. He and d.p. Wally Pfister make expert use of the altered aspect ratio to emphasize the verticality of the frame, packing the images with tall buildings and steep drops. They’re the rare visual gimmick that live up to the hype.
• The opening sequence, in which the Joker and his (soon-to-be-executed) crew commit a bank heist, remains one of the most exciting things Nolan has ever done. It is relentless, energetic, captivating, terrifying, and the perfect way to set the tone of the film to follow. It’s also a clear indication that, whatever the film’s location shoots and visual attempts at reality might attest, we’re in a land of high fantasy. The Joker’s getaway vehicle is a school bus that drives through a bank wall and merges with a line of other buses going past, while cop cars speed in the opposite direction. It’s a great visual punch line, but it also requires ignoring the questions that such an event would raise. Why didn’t the guy driving the bus behind the Joker’s say anything when a bus drove out of a bank and joined their queue? Did he just not notice the hole in the side of the building? (And what kind of gas was in the grenade that the Joker shoved into the mouth of the bank manager?) Tonally, though, it is flawless. Ledger’s introduction when he removes his mask, coupled with the way his dialogue is amplified on lower registers over the film’s soundtrack, is staggering.
• One of the ways in which Batman Begins made its story feel somewhat more organic was the way it downplayed the use of character nicknames. Batman was often called “the Batman,” a reference to character history and a way to turn him into an object: the vigilante, the freak, the Batman. It was as much an identifier as a name. Ditto the way that “Scarecrow” was not used much, and certainly not as a way to address Dr. Crane, even when he donned his burlap mask. Yet The Dark Knight reaches a little harder for these names, notably with the way it makes Dent’s “Two-Face” a nickname referring to his battered reputation among cops he’d investigated for corruption. When he loses half the skin on his face, the name becomes a kind of sick joke. It just feels forced. The Dark Knight Rises backed off a little in this area: Selina Kyle was a cat burglar, and her goggles, when propped upon her head, looked like cat ears, but “Catwoman” wasn’t getting bandied about.
• The Dark Knight is a pitch-perfect continuation of the tone and style Nolan started refining in Batman Begins, and its effect on the superhero movies that followed is impossible to ignore. But many of those movies — your Marvel sequels, your YA adaptations — have imitated the film’s dark tone without being able to replicate any of the other elements that made it work. This is a grim film, but it’s also about redemption. It’s about heroes, but also about the inevitability of losing. It’s bulky, but it makes room for character development. It employs tragedy, but never falsely manipulates. And it has at its center one of the best and most vivid performances ever done in a superhero movie, one so good that it makes everyone else look poorer by comparison. The movie might not be perfect, but Ledger is perfect in it, and that’s ultimately what makes the film.
Ledger died during production of Parnassus, which resulted in a rewrite that saw Ledger’s character played by multiple actors, including Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, and Jude Law.↩
Eleven-year-old spoiler alert, I guess, but if you’ve read this far into a blog post about Batman movies and didn’t know what happened in them, you have only yourself to blame.↩
Not just subdued, either: killed! Two-Face falls to his death as Batman saves Gordon’s kid. Batman can rig a variety of life-saving ropes and wires when facing off against the cops, and he can fall from a skyscraper and land on a taxi and survive, but he can’t toss a line around Two-Face? Come on.↩
• This is the movie where what we think of as Christopher Nolan’s style began to solidify itself. It was his third time working with director of photography Wally Pfister, and his first time working with editor Lee Smith and composer Hans Zimmer. All three would provide crucial elements of Nolan’s work. It’s easier to see like this:
Wally Pfister (cinematographer)
Lee Smith (editor)
Hans Zimmer (composer)
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Filmmaking is, ultimately, a collaborative enterprise, and Nolan’s major movies are defined by the efforts of this core team. Batman Begins has a beautiful, burnished look, with amber-soaked visuals that rely on narrow depth-of-field and crisp edges. It’s also cut incredibly fast: with more than 2,800 shots, its average shot length is just 2.8 seconds. These rapid cuts start right at the beginning, too. It’s Nolan’s way of cramming the maximum amount of information into a cinematic moment, relying as much on intimation and vibe as on actual depiction. And all those visuals are set against the thrumming, chord-hammering score. Zimmer’s composition is markedly different from, say, Danny Elfman’s rousing theme from Tim Burton’s 1989 version. It’s not about melody, but atmosphere. The “Batman theme” here, such as it is, is just a minor chord held in a crescendo, then a shift to major as the crescendo peaks. Quick, sharp, moody: this is Nolan finding his pop voice.
• The script’s structure has grown on me over the years. When I first saw it, it felt too clumsily tripartite: staring with Bruce Wayne and Ra’s al Ghul, then making it about Dr. Crane/Scarecrow, then shifting back to Ra’s al Ghul seemed off in some way. Clunky, like grinding a transmission to find the right gear. But I realize now that I was bringing too much expectation and outside knowledge into the film. To a certain degree, I was expecting both a clear announcement of the villain and a typical kind of superhero movie. What’s more, since this was Nolan’s first time working with this kind of structure, it was my first time learning how he makes movies. It feels much smoother now in part because I’m more used to Nolan’s approach. Memento‘s approach to storytelling helped put Nolan on the map, but that film is still fairly straightforward: scenes playing in alternate order, one timeline moving forward and the other moving backward, until they meet in the middle. Batman Begins, though, is much more temporally fluid: it starts with Bruce Wayne as a child, then jumps forward to reveal we were watching an adult Bruce dream about himself, then weaves in more flashbacks as Bruce leaves prison and begins his training with Ra’s al Ghul. The first time I saw it, the first third of the film felt so much like an extended prologue that I was a little jarred by later developments. Now, though, its easier to see how assured Nolan is of how he wants to tell the story. The high points even broadcast the plot in a neon that my eyes didn’t notice a decade ago: Bruce’s training is about being forced to confront his fears by powerful, ruthless men who traffic in psychotropic hallucinogens. When Dr. Crane shows up using the same methods and referring grimly to his unnamed employer, who else could he be talking about but Ra’s al Ghul?
• The script also has some shameless moments of blockbuster pandering. A civilian, dazed by the sight of the tank-like Batmobile scrambling by, actually does a double-take at his coffee cup. This is a cartoon-level gag, one step above cutting to a reaction shot of a dog covering its eyes. Jim Gordon is also impressed by the Batmobile, saying, “I’ve gotta get me one of those!” These are the kinds of moments that can’t feel authentic because they exist outside the movie’s reality. They reference a specific kind of historical gag and reference, and they’re meant to act as winks to the audience to remind them how much fun they’re having. It’s like the “woman inherits the earth” riff in Jurassic Park. It exists for no other reason than to remind people they’re watching a movie.
• One of the film’s strengths, though, is the degree to which it manages to stand on its own while also realizing — and acting accordingly — that it cannot help but be the latest link in a pop culture chain stretching back to the 1930s. It does a good job at establishing Bruce Wayne’s trauma, obsession, and general emotional instability, all of which are necessary to make the leap from “sad orphan” to “man willing to design and wear a bat costume to fight crime as a ninja.” This is why it takes so much screen time for Batman to appear (and why, in Bruce’s first outings as a nighttime vigilante, he’s dressed in a balaclava and rappelling gear). By the time Batman shows up, we’re invested.
Yet the film can also only make sense if you go in knowing who or what Batman is, or at the very least have an understanding of the basics: Bruce Wayne is orphaned rich boy turned crimefighter, his enemies are usually insane people like the Joker, it all takes place in Gotham City, etc. Batman is one of the oldest and most enduring comic book heroes in pop culture, and even a film like Batman Begins that retells the origin story in its own manner is going to rely on that collective cultural history in ways it might not even realize. If you had never heard of Batman at all, the film would mostly work, though some of the narrative and aesthetic choices would be odd. E.g., when young Bruce’s parents are killed, he’s comforted at the police station by a mustachioed young officer for a surprising amount of time. The officer’s captain enters and addresses him by name — “Gordon” — as the soundtrack briefly swells to highlight the moment. For this to make any cinematic sense, you have to know that Batman works closely with an older Gordon when he’s police commissioner in comic books, TV series, and other movies. That is the only way this scene, the way it’s done here, can matter. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, either. It’s just a sign of how hard it is to make “fresh” movies when you’re working with a story that, at the time of the film’s release, had been part of American entertainment for more than 65 years.
• Katie Holmes is a lot better in this movie than people probably give her credit for being. Rachel Dawes has plenty to do: Bruce Wayne’s childhood friend, a crusading lawyer determined to take on organized crime, and a motivating force for Bruce to examine his own life and motivations. She’s the one who shames Bruce when he admits to planning to kill the man who shot his parents, and she’s the one who tells him that actions speak loudest when it comes to social change. Holmes is good, too: sharp, engaging, a nice physical and emotional counterpoint to Christian Bale. 1 But Holmes got engaged to Tom Cruise the same month Batman Begins hit theaters, and that was pretty much it from her, in a serious way, for years. She didn’t reprise the Rachel role in The Dark Knight, instead appearing in that year in Mad Money, which tanked. She was in a couple more movies, but she didn’t divorce Cruise until 2012. Watching Batman Begins is like watching an old home movie of someone who would later be kidnapped, blithely going about their day, with no idea of what lies in store.
• The soundtrack and sound design are so crucial here (and in all of Nolan’s movies) at making small moments feel unsettling and packed with possible horror. When Crane visits Falcone in prison, he asks him rhetorically, “Have you seen my mask?” Falcone narrows his eyes as the soundtrack hums with a low pulse — quiet, gut-level — and it’s more than enough to make whatever’s about to come feel like it will be terrible. Cf. the sound design of any scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker interrogates someone.
• Batman Begins — and Nolan’s Batman trilogy in toto — changed the shape of superhero movies. It was grayer and more serious than, say, Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, and its success led to legions of imitators that aped its grim tone but didn’t have the story or directorial skill to match it. Modern Marvel movies are now basically just plodding ripoffs of Nolan: thundering, laborious, complicated, not much fun. And for all the trauma on display here, it’s still a movie that knows how to have fun. The Batmobile chase scene is undeniably fun, and there’s a prickly thrill in watching Bruce Wayne learn how to outfit himself and become a dark warrior.
• The film is packed with the kind of stunning images that still feel surprising in a superhero movie, and were that much more startling when the film was released. The awful monster Crane sees in Batman’s face when he hallucinates; the red-eyed demon Batman appears to be when he flies over a crowd of people infected by the hallucinogenic toxin; the scene in which Batman interrogates the crooked cop by hanging him by an ankle and raising and lowering him several stories at a time. No other hero movie looks like Nolan’s do.
She was good in some of her earlier work, too, including Go and Wonder Boys, as well as Thank You For Smoking, which came out the same year as The Dark Knight.↩
Four years ago my wife found a box of week-old kittens abandoned outside her office. They’d been left in a cardboard box with a bowl of water; it’s amazing none of them had drowned in it. She called me, frantic, as she was driving them to the vet to see what needed to be done. Or maybe she was driving home when she called, the rough outlines of a plan having already formed in her mind after talking to the doctor. I can’t remember any more. It’s one of those mercurial details that keeps sliding away. But ultimately what happened was she brought them home and we decided to foster them during their infancy until they were old enough to be adopted. We already had a dog, two cats, and a pair of finches,1 so adding five cats to that mix seemed absurd. But we didn’t want to turn them back into the world yet, either. They were too young for a shelter to take them, so we reasoned that we’d be able to find homes for them if we kept them healthy for a few weeks.
If you want to make God laugh, etc. The early stages of caring for the kittens were blurry and fearful. We prepared formula, fashioned a pen from a spare dog crate, bought them a heated stuffed animal with an electronic heart designed to mimic the presence of their absent mother; we nuzzled our mouths and jaws against the tops of their heads, a sign of comfort and love the vet told us would help them feel calm; we gently rubbed damp cotton swabs against their groins to teach them to urinate and defecate. We did not sleep much. Our guest room was given over to them entirely.
The vet didn’t want us to have any illusions about their life expectancy, telling us that, of the five, we’d be lucky if one survived. A few days after bringing the kittens home, the littlest one, a tiny scrapper we’d named Runty, began to slip away. His struggles were too great, and we had to put him to sleep. A few days after that, my wife went to check on them and found that one of the others — a bruiser we’d named Scooter, for his habit of scooting backward up our arms as we cradled him — had died in his sleep. The vet took care of him for us, too. We felt trapped and helpless by what was happening.
But then things got better. The three remaining cats — all girls — grew stronger and healthier. They’d been too weak to make any sound the day we found them; now they howled and clamored at meal time. We started taking more pictures. We rearranged the furniture in the guest so that they’d have space to wander around. They started eating solid food, and we felt more sure that the worst had passed. We entertained the notion of placing them in a good home, but we wanted them to stay together, and to be kept inside. A few people offered to take just one (usually the one with the white fur on her feet and face, like a mustache and socks), but it felt wrong. Time passed, and we grew attached. I grew attached. My wife and I had helped these little animals cling to life, and against unlikely odds, they’d survived. We talked less about finding homes for them, and we realized they’d been ours for a while.
I remember one day walking in to check on them and seeing that one of them had developed an eye infection: one eye was open and clear, the other was swollen and squinted shut. I was so worried about what would happen to her, but the vet said it was a common ailment in kittens. She gave us cream to apply to the eye twice a day, and I’d gently rub some around the little one’s eye as I fed her. We named her Squints. Some time later, she took to me. They all love us, of course. They play with us, climb on us, roll around happily. But Squints began to assert that kind of ownership that strikes pets seemingly of their own accord. She just likes me. As soon as I sit down, she climbs into my lap. She follows me around the house, waits for me outside the bedroom in the morning, scales my back to perch on my shoulders. I’m her human.
So now we have these grown cats, and every now and then my wife and I will look at each other and look back at them and realize that we have animals in our house, real animals, walking around and eating and pissing and everything, animals that give the house a sense of constant movement and habitation. A dog and five cats: we sometimes call our house “the menagerie.” But we’re bonded to them, and they to us.
We eventually found a new home for the finches. A dog and two small birds is fine; add cats to that, and you’ve made a food chain.↩
For Musings, I take a look at Sunshine, a sweeping historical drama that stars Ralph Fiennes in three lead roles across three generations: grandfather, father, son.
Before rewatching the film for this piece, I’d only seen it once. I rented it on a whim in the fall of 2000, when I was a freshman at college. The video store down the street1 offered one free catalog rental every day in a different genre: comedy, drama, horror, family, etc. I went all the time, always on the lookout. I hadn’t heard of Sunshine or its writer-director, István Szabó, before then, and I’d only seen Ralph Fiennes a few years earlier in Quiz Show.2 But the film rocked me back and stayed with me, and I would find myself thinking of it regularly for years. I wanted to revisit it with older eyes, and I was happy to find it’s still beautiful, sad, operatic, and ultimately big-hearted.
I don’t watch as many movies as I used to. It’s not that I love them any less: I still think film is one of our best and most powerful art forms, capable of saying so much more about us than we even realize or intend. But for the past couple years, I’ve felt less interested in staying current with new releases, and with the inevitable pop-cultural #hottakes that accompany them, and more focused on watching what I really want to watch. I went weeks in 2015 only watching one or two movies, and spent whole months just working through classics. In general, I didn’t catch up with most 2015 releases until the end of the year, and before mid-November, I’d seen almost no 2015 releases.
My tally of first-time viewings reflects the change. Beyond that, though, I also spent more time this year revisiting films I hadn’t seen in a while, seeing how they’ve changed in the intervening years, or seeing how I’ve changed. My new-to-me tallies for the past few years:
2011: 79 movies 2012: 69 movies 2013: 104 movies 2014: 79 movies
2015: 64 movies
I used to think I needed to hit a certain number, or a certain kind of number, but now I realize that the natural ebb and flow is more comfortable. Gorge and break, skim and stop; explore as a result of your own drive.
Whiplash (2014): Writer-director Damien Chazelle focuses on the physical tools needed to bring music to life: the sticks, the horns, the stands, the folders, the sweat. It’s shot and cut within an inch of its life, and it almost shakes with energy. Pillow Talk (1959): From a historical standpoint, it’s fascinating and uncomfortable to watch a closeted gay man play a character who at one point makes fun of closeted gay men. This comes with the territory, though. Watching older movies always means experiencing them through your own time, as well as the time in which they were made. (Another example: Pillow Talk came out five years before the Civil Rights Act was passed.) It’s easy to see why the movie was a hit, though. Rock Hudson is staggeringly charismatic, and Doris Day’s energy is perfect. Black Sea (2015): On paper, it has the elements for pulpy, thrilling entertainment: a submarine, a band of rogues, and a hunt for forgotten Nazi gold. And indeed, the first two-thirds of the movie are tight and propulsive, as greed and fear drive the characters to play off each other in desperate ways. But the home stretch finds certain characters swapping personalities and motivations, and they cease to be people and instead become interchangeable devices for plot mechanics, after which it’s a bumpy ride to the finish line. Rewatches:
— The Critic (selected episodes): The first season is better than the second — the animation is a little tighter, and the stories have a little more bite — but it’s still an enjoyable series to revisit. It’s also supremely weird to rewatch as an adult who has worked in a freelance capacity as a film critic for more than ten years. Jay’s struggles to reconcile his tastes with others’, and his general insecurity, are arrows that hit somewhat close to the center of the target.
— Singin’ in the Rain: The older I get, the fonder I grow of musicals. They’re such a pure cinematic form, blending fantasy and reality in ways that no other genre can. There’s so much beauty here, too, in what has to be one of the best musicals and one of the best movies ever made. The energy, the love story, the Hollywood satire, the music and movement: every bit of it is gorgeous.
— L.A. Confidential: It’s fitting that Curtis Hanson’s period piece about Hollywood crime is itself a throwback to big, brassy Hollywood movies. What really popped for me this time around was the score: bombastic, moody, driving, exactly the kind of thing you don’t get much these days. And even with so many good performances on screen, Guy Pearce’s always stands out. Ed Exley has to be power-hungry but also uneasy with himself, cocky but insecure; he imagines that he’s holding it together, even though he knows that people can probably see through his act. He has to carry himself with a certain confidence even as he knows he’s acting. There are wonderful layers to the character that Pearce brings out, and he’s so good and subtle that it’s easy to overlook him in favor of the equally impressive but flashier work of Kevin Spacey and Russell Crowe. Hanson never lets the energy falter, either, especially as the movie gathers speed and enters the home stretch.
— Casino: It takes a lot of work and skill to make something this big feel so breezy. Editor Thelma Schoonmaker cuts this thing within an inch of its life: the movements are rapid but never dislocating. What they are is a kind of purposeful disorientation, so that watching the movie starts to mimic the queasy feeling of being in an actual casino, surrounded by vice and unable to find the exit. Scorsese’s second collaboration with Nicholas Pileggi is probably bound to forever live in the shadow of their first one, Goodfellas, but Casino is still stunning all on its own. What makes the film so charged is the way Ace and Nicky are fated to come into conflict, driven to overreach by their own hubris (Ace picks fights with the local government, Nicky crosses the bosses).
Hairspray (1988): I came to this after seeing the musical, which made for some interesting dissonance. Although this is the original film, I find myself almost unwittingly thinking of it as an “alternate” story to the musical’s “true” one. I also just enjoyed the musical more, thanks largely to the cast. (Divine has presence, but still seemed too aware of the camera.) The China Syndrome (1979): One of the standout thrillers reflecting the bleak 1970s back on itself, anchored by a typically memorable and multi-faceted performance from Jack Lemmon. He has to walk so many wires with his character here: smart enough to do his job, but also smart enough to realize when things are going bad; canny enough to reach out to the reporter (Jane Fonda), but also honest enough to try and flirt with her. He’s tangible in a way few actors are. The One I Love (2014): It’s amazing the depth and distance that quality writing, directing, and acting can create in a movie that only has three characters. Godzilla (2014) (half-finished): Laughably inept. As the lead, Aaron Taylor-Johnson seems unable to express any single recognizable emotion. His own father dies right in front of him, and he resorts to running his hands through his hair; five minutes later, it’s as if it never happened. A clumsy, overplotted blockbuster that uses effects as an excuse to string together boring plot points, with no consideration of acting, writing, or narrative thrust. I turned it off around the one-hour mark because I didn’t want to waste a second hour of my life on it. The Two Faces of January (2014): I could probably watch Oscar Isaac do anything. Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief (2015): Never underestimate the power of evil to manipulate the desperate. Rewatches:
— The Hunt for Red October
— Get Shorty: One of the more enjoyable movies about the movies, in part because its idea of “the movies” resides in a pleasant alternate universe that broke from ours sometime in the 1960s. Shlocky monster horror is mainstream, superheroes are unseen, and YA franchises don’t even exist.
Life Itself (2014): The best moments were those that touched on Roger Ebert as a man at war with himself: aware of his limitations and vices, working to live with them. Sinatra: All or Nothing at All (2015): This Alex Gibney doc doesn’t hit nearly as hard as his Going Clear did, but that’s the price you pay for access to estate materials. Nicely structured, though, weaving through Sinatra’s “farewell” concert and looping out to different parts of his life. We Own the Night (2007): This was only my second James Gray film (after the stellar The Immigrant), and it was fantastic. It’s a solidly built drama about crime and family, and a blend of classic and modern style. Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show (2014): The inadvertent comedy of the redundant title was the first sign that there wouldn’t be much worth exploring here. Far too pat. X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014): They’re really determined to keep making these. Marnie (1964): Sexually bizarre, but a great thriller. That applies to a lot of Hitchcock. Strangers on a Train (1951): Told you. Rewatches:
— Wag the Dog: A movie this dark was never going to be widely accepted. But its strength comes in part from its willingness to follow through on the awful conceit of its story: that people determined to fabricate a war to save a presidency wouldn’t hesitate to eliminate anyone who would threaten their operation.
— Jerry Maguire: Absolutely holds up.
Elizabethtown (2005): Better than its reputation; weaker than its predecessors. Ex Machina (2015): Chilling, gripping science fiction with a genuine head on its shoulders. Oscar Isaac has now ascended to the level of treasured national resource. We Bought a Zoo (2011): Doesn’t even feel like a Cameron Crowe movie. It’s weird and almost unsettling that the same guy who did Say Anything… did this. The Rundown (2003) Rewatches:
— Wet Hot American Summer: A+ for comedy, Beth.
— Best in Show: Guest’s second best.
An American in Paris (1951): Gene Kelly was superhuman. The plot’s not as memorable as some of his other musicals, but the ballet in the final act is every bit the masterpiece. Rewatches:
— Nightcrawler: Queasy and beautiful. Makes total sense that writer-director Dan Gilroy’s brother Tony did Michael Clayton. That’s an ideal double-bill.
— High Fidelity: Cusack is the perfect hesitant shitheel.
The Way of the Gun (2000): A little overly “gritty” in that late-1990s kind of way, but still engaging. Black Rock (2013): A great, grim, quick little thriller. It works in part because it starts so innocuously, and twists so suddenly into horror. Mission: Impossible — Rogue Nation (2015): The ideal summer entertainment. Light, slick, funny, bracing. Rewatches:
— Mission: Impossible: Almost twenty years on, and still a tight, winning action movie. The set pieces feel almost small compared with where the series (and action cinema in general) has gone, but they’ve lost none of their punch.
Hard Boiled (1992): Worth it for some wonderfully choreographed action, especially in the climax. The End of the Tour (2015): It’s hard to watch a movie like this if you’re a fan of its real-life subject, David Foster Wallace (which I am). Jason Segel does a good job at seeming like a real person, though — quiet, insecure — as opposed to a collection of tics meant to forecast tragedy. Yet that’s ultimately what makes the film so odd and, in its way, unfair. It’d be one thing to tell a fictional story about an aspiring writer worming his way into the life of his more talented idol, and Jesse Eisenberg makes for a perfect Salieri figure. But so much of the film feels predicated upon the viewer’s knowledge of true events, including Wallace’s suicide, that the film skips over characters, plots, and even consequences in the service of a general air of “inspiration” in its final moments. For instance, Eisenberg’s David Lipsky wants to write an article about Wallace, but we never find out if it runs; he wants to grow as a writer, but we never found it if he does; we also don’t even learn the circumstances that led him to publish his book about the days he spent with Wallace. In other words, it feels too falsely manipulative, unwilling to stay loyal to its nature as a story and too eager to trade on the viewer’s knowledge of what would eventually happen to Wallace. Hurricane of Fun: The Making of Wet Hot (2015): A fun but aimless collection of behind-the-scenes footage. Less a documentary than a loose assemblage of clips. The Drop (2014): Tom Hardy should always have a dog as a costar. The Thin Blue Line (1988): Throws you into the deep end and then gets in with you. Trouble in Paradise (1932): Lighter than air and sexy as hell. Witty, warm, exciting; almost everything you could want in a movie. Rewatches:
— Night Moves
— Inside Man: One of Lee’s best.
— That Thing You Do: A comfort-food mainstay.
— Edge of Tomorrow: I can’t stop watching this movie.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015): I didn’t see the clothed emperor so many of my colleagues did here. It’s got plenty of energy, sure, but the characters are so empty (especially Max) that the story is meaningless, and the resulting product is essentially an exercise in impressive stuntwork. Exporting Raymond (2010): There’s a good idea in here somewhere, but the problem is that the film’s subject, Phil Rosenthal, is also its director. As such, the central story (investigating what happens when an American TV show is remade for a foreign audience) is a little shapeless. One Hour With You (1932): Maurice Chevalier getting away with everything he could in the final days before the Code. Twilight (1998): The plot turns are telegraphed almost in neon, but it’s still alluring to see Newman, Garner, and Hackman in their latter days. Rewatches:
— Awful Nice: Not as strong as I remember it being from a SXSW screening a couple years back, but not bad.
— Mulholland Dr.: I love this movie.
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931): Another pre-Code Chevalier from Lubitsch, and cute enough, though not as winning as One Hour With You. Lost Highway (1997): David Lynch scares the hell out of me, and I love it. (See also.) The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946): A surprisingly twisty noir — it feels like it has seven acts — with great work from John Garfield and the stunning Lana Turner. Bonus: Hume Cronyn almost walks away with the show. On the Town (1949): Effervescent, beautiful, crackling. One of my favorite viewing experiences of the year. Laura (1944): “Have you ever been in love?” “A doll in Washington Heights once got a fox fur out of me.” That’s when I knew I’d found something. Anchors Aweigh (1945): The first Sinatra-Kelly pairing (which would prompt their reunion in On the Town), and while it’s a little flabby, it’s still gorgeous to look at. Kathryn Grayson is about as exciting as a wet sock, and her period-style warbling doesn’t age well, but Sinatra and Kelly are still great. How to Marry a Millionaire (1953): Fantastic and slick in that 1950s Hollywood way. You can practically smell American empire through the frame. The Amityville Horror (1979): Could be summarized: “Strange things happen and then everybody gets away just fine.” Weirdly anticlimactic. Rewatches:
— The Departed: DiCaprio is so good here, so on edge, that he walks away with the movie.
— The Prestige: One of Nolan’s absolute best, if not the peak.
The Haunting (1963): Nothing but smart editing and sound design, yet it’s more terrifying than most modern thrillers. M (1931): Eerie, unnerving, fantastic. Spy (2015): Melissa McCarthy has settled into a nice groove: she knows what she wants to do, and what she’s good at doing. The Watcher in the Woods (1980): My wife grew up watching this, and it is bonkers. It starts out as a ghost story but then says “Maybe aliens?” Carol (2015): Todd Haynes is a methodical filmmaker with a modest output — he’s only made six features in 24 years — and that sense of care and focus are evident here. Carol is a quiet film about repression and fear, relying on glances, body language, and the hope of the unknown to communicate its characters’ longing for love. Steve Jobs (2015): Aaron Sorkin’s script is effervescent, but the film as a whole doesn’t quite hang together. Spotlight (2015): Tom McCarthy’s another filmmaker who traditionally focuses on small, interpersonal moments, which makes him a good fit for the journalistic grind of Spotlight. It’s such a solid, strong film that its real skill and power won’t be recognized for a few years. Trainwreck (2015): Judd Apatow’s films now seem hidebound to follow a formula he stumbled across a decade back: lots of improvised riffs, some stray plots that go nowhere, and running times that are about 30 minutes overweight. (When a potentially breezy rom-com like Trainwreck clocks in at just over two hours, something’s gotta go.) There’s still a good deal to enjoy here, though, especially Bill Hader’s chemistry with Amy Schumer. I was a little late to the party, watching the film a few months after it came out, but even so I was struck by how tone-deaf and immature some critics’ reactions were to the film re: what they viewed as its conservative or regressive bias. Schumer’s character, by the end, decides to grow up a little: she cuts back on the boozing and opts to risk heartbreak for a real relationship. This is a pretty common arc, especially for an Apatow movie, which are all about people deciding to get their acts together. It’s not inherently conservative1 or retrograde for a character to have an awakening of sorts and pursue change in the name of a higher good; that’s most drama. It doesn’t become oppressive just because the protagonist is a woman. Results (2015): A shaggy, warm, engaging romantic dramedy. The low budget and run-and-gun attitude shine through in the best way. Rewatches:
— Bull Durham: A perfect film.
— It Should Happen to You
Joy (2015): A soupy mess. Jennifer Lawrence, charismatic as she may be, doesn’t have the age or range to play a grown woman with the kind of history David O. Russell wants her to have. Russell’s determination to keep making the same film over and over — a cranked-up version of 1970s histrionics — is old now. I pine for the days of Three Kings and I Heart Huckabees. The Hateful Eight (2015): A brutal, riveting drawing-room horror story. The first 90 minutes are the tightest, most suspenseful filmmaking Tarantino’s done; the second 90, when all hell breaks loose, is just as rewarding. Best of Enemies (2015): A well-meaning but small-feeling doc about the rivalry between Vidal and Buckley. Two titans seem weirdly shrunk. The Big Short (2015): One of the best American movies of the year. Punchy and full-throated, like an angry civics lesson from a history teacher too tired to pretend the world’s worth saving. Inside Out (2015): A flat-out masterpiece. The characters and story are perfect, and the emotionally nuanced message — about the necessity of sadness and grief, and the way all memories are made of a mix of feelings — is one of Pixar’s most powerful. Sicario (2015): Great photography. Bad everything else. The Revenant (2015): See above. Trumbo (2015): See above. The Good Dinosaur (2015): See above. Brooklyn (2015): A wonderful film. Too often the end of the year brings dramas that traffic in the worst of the human condition, and while those stories are worth telling, they can induce a Pavlovian response. More than halfway into Brooklyn, I kept expecting someone to get raped, or have a medically risky abortion, or run over a friend with their car, or contract polio, or who knows what. But this isn’t that film. Rather, it’s a beautiful drama that digs into the life of a young woman who emigrates from Ireland to the U.S. in the 1950s. By focusing on these “small” stakes, the film feels universal in its observations of family. Bonus: my favorite ending scene/shot of the year. Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015): It took 35 years, but somebody finally made an entertaining Star Wars movie again. The Martian (2015): Entertaining, meat-and-potatoes adventure. The book is a mess, but that makes it perfect fodder for a movie adaptation. There’s no style or insight to be shed in the process of translating it to the screen. Rewatches:
— Sunshine: Not the Danny Boyle film, but the 1999 drama by Istvan Szabo. I rented it from the video store in the fall of 2000, on a whim, and it stayed with me. I revisited it for the first time since then, and I found it even more moving.
— The Godfather: What’s left to say? The American dream as operatic tragedy.
— White Christmas: My father and sister loved this movie when I was young, but it took me years to appreciate it.
— Star Wars: I was born in 1982, and am therefore of the generation that still refers to the first film simply as “Star Wars.”
— The Empire Strikes Back: The best, most beautiful, most impressive film in the series.
By the Numbers
Total films seen: 642
Animated films: 2
Foreign (non-U.S.) films: 13
Movies released in 2015: 26
Movies released before 2015: 38
Movies released before 2000: 22
Movies released before 1950: 8
Of the ten highest grossers of the year (as of Dec. 31), I saw: 3
Favorites (in no particular order): Brooklyn, Laura, On the Town, Trouble in Paradise, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Drop, The Rundown, The Big Short, Carol, Spotlight, Ex Machina
Whatever this even means to the different critics hurling it at the film like it’s the biggest rock they can find.↩
To keep things easy, these numbers only cover films that were new to me, not rewatches.↩
Quitting a book you aren’t enjoying is one of the few unspoiled pleasures of adult life. For the past few years, as I’ve tallied up the books I’ve read and compared it against those I’ve quit or set aside, I realize that by abandoning those books I conclude aren’t for me, I’ve opened myself up to happier reading experiences in general. Time spent with a book is, of course, different from that spent with a film. I’ve muscled through several films I wound up disliking in order to have a better understanding of them as a whole, knowing that at most I’d be setting aside about two hours for them. A book, though, can spend weeks on your nightstand.1 Accordingly, this year I thought it worth breaking out the list of books I encountered in 2015 into separate lists: those I finished, and those that, for whatever reason, I didn’t.
Silver Screen Fiend: Learning About Life From an Addiction to Film, Patton Oswalt (2015): Most comedians who excel on stage aren’t able to find similar success in prose, and Oswalt is, unfortunately, no exception. But his latest book is still a breezy, fun read, the kind that can be plowed through in an afternoon or evening, and his observations about the cultural battle between two broad definitions of comedy (crowd-pleasing versus introspective) are astute and hard-earned.
Love Dishonor Marry Die Cherish Perish, David Rakoff (2013): A novel constructed in meter would have to be brief to avoid turning gimmick into obstacle, and Rakoff’s slender book is the perfect length. The best section: when he dives into the mind of a man in a coma, haunted by his memory.
A Prayer for Owen Meany, John Irving (1989): One of the best books I read all year, and my first Irving. I have fuzzy memories of Simon Birch, the 1998 film loosely adapted, but they’re vague enough (and the film reportedly different enough from its source material) that I didn’t have anything to interfere with my experience of the book’s story and themes. I picked it up on a whim at the public library and fell into a world of bruised but yearning faith, and a sprawling, heartfully messy plot about childhood and love and death and the things that haunt all of us all of our lives. It wrapped its hand around mine and did not let go.
The Magician’s Land, Lev Grossman (2014): A worthy and energetic end to Grossman’s trilogy — begun with The Magicians and The Magician King — but still a little airy in parts. I can never shake the feeling that the first book in the series was the story the author really wanted to tell, and everything that’s happened since is more of a fun “what if” extension of that initial, most powerful volume.
Bird Box, Josh Malerman (2015): A post-apocalyptic thriller I can barely remember months later. The hook was that some kind of madness or disease wipes out most of the population, and people catch the disease by seeing its effects and going mad. The good guys hang in there by the end, I think.
Annihilation, Jeff Vandermeer (2014): The first and best volume of Vandermeer’s Southern Reach trilogy, about government efforts to investigate a supernatural, sealed-off area along an unnamed2 (but, I believe, Floridian) coast. This book reads like a modern update to Lovecraft, and the trilogy could have ended here and no one would’ve been the wiser or poorer.
Station Eleven, Emily St. John Mandel (2014): Of the many post-apocalyptic books out there right now, this is one of the best and most moving I’ve read. The end of the world is a popular topic in fiction in an era when nothing seems to be going right and national interests are giving way to personal ones. Mandel keeps the focus on the characters, though, instead of getting lost in the math. A hopeful, authentic experience.
Authority, Jeff Vandermeer (2014): Book two of Vandermeer’s trilogy is, like a lot of sequels, a little softer than its predecessor but not without its own merits. The best thing about it is that it moves the location of the story from inside the supernatural region to the bureaucratic, politically oppressive office that investigates it.
Acceptance, Jeff Vandermeer (2014): Book three feels like a checklist being dutifully worked through: flashbacks for you, and you, and you, and here we are.
Love Me Back, Merritt Tierce (2014): Outstanding, stunning, wrenching, engaging, truthful, powerful, every other superlative you can think of in that vein. Hits like a hammer and doesn’t stop.
The Steady Running of the Hour, Justin Go (2014): I couldn’t shake the vibe that this novel about World War I seemed reverse-engineered just to coincide with the centennial of the war’s beginning. It’s a treasure hunt/history lesson of sorts, but emotionally a little dense, and I started skimming about halfway through.
Alys, Always, Harriet Lane (2012): A solid little psychological thriller about a woman who worms her way into a widower’s life. Eerie for what we never find out about her, or what drives her.
Lucky Alan and Other Stories, Jonathan Lethem (2015): I like to stay up with Lethem, though nothing of his has ever connected with me the way The Fortress of Solitude did. Maybe that was our only time to be in sync.
The Girl on the Train, Paula Hawkins (2015): I finished it out of sheer spite and will. Characters and plot became laughable, and the mystery doubly so.
In Persuasion Nation, George Saunders (2006): Saunders should be canonized, taught in schools, and given his own holiday.
The Last Wish, Andrzej Sapkowski (1993/2007): I spent a serious amount of time this year playing The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, which might be one of the best video games I’ve ever played. I became so attached to the fictional world that I picked up this volume of short stories that created the character. They’re enjoyable fantasy tales, and pleasingly unpredictable.
Purity, Jonathan Franzen (2015): This apt line from the L.A. Review of Books keeps ringing in my ears: “The Corrections was prescient and Freedom timely, but Purity arrives into a literary world already dated.” There’s definitely a sense of remove in the book that likely comes from Franzen’s professed disdain for digital life and communications. The largest character in it — a hacktivist modeled after Julian Assange — also feels like its thinnest and least relatable. Conversely, the section that deals with the young, doomed marriage of two other characters, structured as novella written by the man, is the strongest. Go figure.
Some Luck, Jane Smiley (2014): The first volume in Smiley’s trilogy of American life in the 20th century3 was both gentle and profound. Each chapter covers a year in the life of the Langdons, starting in 1920, and that structure allows Smiley to start piling on the years like weights on a scale. The effect, after thirty-odd years of narrative, is of watching a river carve its bed out of the rock.
We the Animals, Justin Torres (2011): A grim, quick-shot novel about rough childhoods and decaying families. I don’t regret reading it per se, but have zero plans to revisit.
Left by the Wayside
Swann’s Way, Marcel Proust (transl. Lydia Davis) (1913): My weakness4 is my pride in my sense of what I should be reading, or should have read. The latest case in point: this gorgeous and evocative volume of the first book of Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, which I found moving and beautiful but eventually just sort of drifted away from by February. I’m not resigned to defeat, though.
The Abominable, Dan Simmons (2013): I liked The Terror quite a bit — ditto Summer of Night — but I lost interest in this thriller about mountain climbers who wind up facing threats from a yeti. (At least, that’s where it was heading when I checked out.) I realize I liked the straight-ahead thrills more than the awkward attempt at involving the supernatural.
The Troop, Nick Cutter (2014): A Lord of the Flies tribute muddied by weak writing.
H is for Hawk, Helen Macdonald (2015): A gorgeous book that I had to put down out of basic squeamishness. I don’t eat animals, and I found I wasn’t that keen on intense depictions of their subjugation, hunting, and death.
The Paying Guests, Sarah Waters (2014): I just gave up and read the Wikipedia description.
Two Years Before the Mast, Henry Dana (1840): I couldn’t lock in with the prose, which is an occupational hazard with a book that’s 175 years old.
Moses, Man of the Mountain, Zora Neale Hurston (1939): I loved the early sections, but lost interest as the plot began to wander.
The Martian, Andy Weir (2011): The writing here is sometimes laughably bad and ungainly. It comes as no surprise that it was self-published before taking off with Kindle audiences and being issued as a proper book. At first I couldn’t stand the gee-whiz tone of the narrator; skipping ahead, I saw that the tone wasn’t confined to one character. Back to the library it went.
Did You Ever Have a Family, Bill Clegg (2015): Overly maudlin and drippy.
The Cartel, Don Winslow (2015): My mistake was trying to jump into this before reading its predecessor, The Power of the Dog. Worth revisiting in the future.
Julian Comstock, Robert Charles Wilson (2009): A great idea — a futuristic take on the florid history novels of the 18th and 19th centuries — but one I started to tire of after a hundred pages or so.
City on Fire, Garth Risk Hallberg (2015): Some great writing, but a little weighed down. I realized that I was reading at one point out of a sense of social obligation to one of the year’s Big Books, and not as much out of any real curiosity or connection to the work. When it came time to return it to the library, I let it go without too much sadness.
Early Warning, Jane Smiley (2015): Smiley’s second novel in her American trilogy started as captivating as her first. But I think I’d spent so much time going so deep into the Langdon family that I needed a break, and so jumping into this so soon after completing Some Luck wound up a bit of a miscalculation. I’ll be back to it later, though.
A Prayer for Owen Meany, Station Eleven, Love Me Back, In Persuasion Nation
Many people, including my wife, read faster than I do. I typically read before going to sleep, and usually only make it a few pages before the day’s fatigue catches up with me. Hence, a book someone else might knock out in a few days of dedicated reading will be in my life much longer.↩