Three high concept pictures

Source Code

Duncan Jones, US, 2011

Not quite the conceptual humdinger that Moon was (same director, of course), but this is still an intelligent, agile, and conscientious exploration of interesting ideas: time and space, will and fate, authority and independence, love and death and love, etc.  Cool, if not quite mind-blowing or world-shaking.  This isn’t a very big problem, since Source Code is finally a genre picture, in the most honest, honourable sense.  As such, the film's most important or most heart-felt ideas may actually be more cinematical than philosophical.  How can we stage this situation, how can we render our story through visual elaboration and evolution?  Of course their solution is the tried-and-true of theme and variations.  The strategy works very well.  

More, and better, is something that also relates in fundamental ways to the status of the genre film within film histories and film industries.  The challenge that seems to have been set here relates to how one might effectively and substantially engage, entertain and even edify an audience.  What a good goal, and they pull it off; this is a nice movie!  True, narratively speaking they’re dealing with terrorism and psychosis and stuff.  And they naturally expend a lot of energy in that direction.  The mystery is very ingeniously solved, but the actual solution is a bit disappointingly seen-that.  A techno-loony, eh?  A bit wan, but in the end it's not such a big problem.  That’s because of the more important, more heart-felt conclusion.  The destruction and death are actually real world but here they refuse nihilism or despair, opting instead for affirmation and optimism.  Speaking of sublime genre statements, that affirmation and optimism is ultimately Hawksian-romantic.  Smart men and women!  The leads are terrific, and not at all in a show biz way.  Also, excellent support from Farmiga and the fairly hilarious Jeffrey Wright. 

The Adjustment Bureau

George Nolfi, US, 2011

Hats are dumb...

There might be something in this spate of thrillers that not only have philosophical pretentions, but actually rise to a measure of philosophizing.  Here’s some good stuff about God and man, free will and determinism, and then the possibility and viability of personal determination over and above it all.  As Damon, who is developing a really interesting low affect acting style, runs around all over the place, we get kinesis and exegesis both.  

Themes, for instance: restriction may be, often is benevolent.  Dominoes fall, and devil take the hindmost.  We don’t deserve it.  Or, one importunate widow can actually make a difference.    Oh—and obviously, the temptations of paternalistic, deterministic despotism.  (It's Homeland Security, once again...)  It seems quite sincere, and quite viable, that in the face of all of the reasonably substantial political exploration it’s love that conquers all.  (Cf. the Archers' A Matter of Life and Death!)  The romance here is only somewhat and not exclusively immoral, and everyone involved really seem to believe in its importance.  If you don't deserve it, but you still get it, isn't that grace?  What does it say about my middle-aged self that I don’t buy it, or maybe just don’t like it?  These characters should fail!  Not much faith in the masses, it would seem, or a few too many wonderfully despairing works.

Limitless (√)

Neil Burger, US, 2011

For all the modern techno-accoutrements, for all of the media echoes and hyper macro-zooms, this is just another version of Half Magic, or The Five Children and It.  This is not at all to disparage, mind you; not only do the kids like the concept, but they like it because it reflects a basic, patterned human truth.  Beware of what you wish for. 

For instance...

The contemporary manifestations of this folkloric problem are familiar, and apt.  The film presents the problem in the form of a drug, which suggests substances, or dependencies generally.  Pornography could apply, and certainly our gluttonous appetite for social media and omni-technology.  Whatever the metaphor, the fact is that these days we’re voracious for sensation, desirous of multi-and omni-connectivity.  We want to be everywhere, aware at the same time that this may just leave us nowhere.  Our protagonist shuttles between these two extremes—he’s either an inert waster or a speed freak.  That would describe a lot of the university students I know these days.

Is this part on purpose?  There’s a Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, not Burgess), Fight Club component here.  The film is tempted toward and even kind of embodies the very thing that it is worried about.  The irony comes across as conscious, or on-purpose.  And as technology is more morally neutral or at least morally complicated than hyper/sexualized violence, I don't think there's any particular hypocrisy going on here.  Especially since, parable resonance or didactic opportunity aside, this is a commercial film.  You've got to think of your investors!  Since this is the case, this movie very nicely establishes and resolves its conflicts.  (It is also very successful and stylish in visualizing them.  Plus, violence!)  The further or final irony is that in the end our protagonist wins.  Just like in A Clockwork Orange!  Or maybe The Godfather II.  Or Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.  Happy endings can leave a productive sour taste in your mouth.

Get it?