Yesterday I posted a few of my thoughts on the marketing for “Inception” and how the trailers were channelling ”The Matrix” in their efforts to generate interest. I also commented on how often films with similar themes, plot, and even “set pieces” will emerge around the same time. This ties in with my comment on how “Dark City” serves as a kind of prequel to “The Matrix” both in view of its earlier release date and similar story elements.
To be fair, “Dark City” borrows heavily from other sources as well. Especially in the climactic showdown between Rufus Sewell and the blad guy, which parallels another climatic showdown between Alec Bladwin (in 1994’s “The Shadow”) and the antagonist. In both cases the parties involved are able to manipulate the material worlds with only their minds and each film concerns an antagonistic force deceiving the populace of a city through mind control and illusion, which the hero overcomes by the end of the picture. All of the films are also apocalyptical allegories, not only thematically but in tone and imagery.
The commercial failure of “The Shadow” and its release date four years prior, must have made it an attractive property to pillage for ideas as public memory of the film would have faded by the time of “Dark City’s” release. (I am assuming the choice was conscious or at least, the filmmakers were familiar “the Shadow.”) While there are variations to both sequences, many of the key shots in the aforementioned “showdown” are duplicated in the latter production.
I’ve included clips to both scenes for comparison. You’ll have to skip ahead to the time indicated if you don’t want to sit through the whole clip (you may have better things to do).
The Shadow: skip to 07:00
Dark City: Skip to 05:50
I suppose this speaks more to the notion of what constitutes an original idea versus an innovative or unique perspective of an existing idea. ”The Matrix” puts a new spin on many of the ideas discussed in “Dark City” or “The Shadow” which cite far older sources (ie. Plato’s “cave” allegory) putting their own modern take on it. The main difference I suppose is that “the Matrix” engaged the imaginations of the general public in ways its predecessors did not and as such receives a lot more recognition and its share of apologists.
It also serves as an example of “borrowing” an idea versus “stealing” it. That is, the difference between reusing an idea much in the same way – if not identically – as it was in a previous production (borrowing) and taking an idea and making it your own (stealing). A debate that I will not get into at this time except to say “stealing” is better than “borrowing” in this context as it requires the filmmaker to reinvent or rethink an existing concept. You may render judgement as you see fit on the aforementioned films.
This “battle of the minds” motif has been around for some time. Below is the duel scene from the classic Cronenberg film “Scanners” which features a telepathic battle of wills – sans knives – which culminates in spontaneous human combustion. Cool beans.
“Avatar” was cited by one group as a pro-smoking film, as reported by the New York Times. As they mention in the article, Sigourney Weaver’s character in the film smokes and according to director James Cameron is meant to be a character flaw not an endorsement of smoking. You can read the article at nytimes.com
Personally, smoking and cinema go together like meat and potatoes – excuse the cliche – and that’s because smoke looks good on film (digital video too?) whether glamorized or not. It gives the image texture, be it smoke from a cigarette, a gun, or a burning house.
In this case, the anti-smoking lobby seems to be over-reacting and the suggestion that smoking should be depicted in negative terms smacks of censorship.
The trailer for Nolan’s “Inception” – his first original screenplay since “Following” – seems familiar (see below). With much of the story details withheld, to build anticipation, what we’ve been presented thus far reminds me of “The Matrix” (1999).Particularly, the back-story to “The Matrix” about that first Neo-esque saviour who could control “reality” with his mind. A narrative already familiar back in 1999 a year after the release of “Dark City” which was also about human beings under the control of an alien intelligence. In that film, like in “The Matrix,” the hero becomes self-aware and is able to alter reality with his mind. There were additional similarities – too numerous to list – between the two films. Making it a kind of prequel.
1999 also saw the release of “The Thirteenth Floor,” “eXistenZ” “Being John Malkovich” and “Fight Club” all of which toyed with themes of reality, identity, the psyche, and mind control. Additionally, many of the above also feature armed resistance, revolution, a distrust of mainstream society, and of course computer technology run amok, often parasitic.
I suppose the culture’s obsession with technology, including a fascination with alternative reality (the internet, video games) and the appeal of a high-concept science-fiction thriller (a la “The Matrix”) has much to do with the promotion of the film. A promotional campaign which can be described as vague, perhaps to gauge initial public reaction before initiating the next phase.
This leads me to three conclusions: either the story is so different the studio is cautious about how to approach the so-important task of marketing to movie-goers or its so bland and generic they’re not sure how to get asses in the seats. Then again it might be a bit of both, a familiar story with an innovative perspective – a hallmark of Nolan’s – which they’re not sure how to prep audiences for. A gamble as so often the promise of a certain kind of film – associated closely with genre – is misconstrued by the promotion of the film. From time to time films are able to transcend the marketing strategy, when they do not conform to it.
A good example of this would be the marketing campaign for “Avatar” which was stretched out for over a year, plenty of time to test the waters before committing to an overall advertising strategy, which undersold the story in favour of the effects. A narrative adopted by critics, who echoed these sentiments almost verbatim.
I am more than curious to see what approch the studio adopts when it puts its advertising campaign into high gear. Assuming they decide to do so. There is always, of course, the DVD release that allows the studio to re-package the film to target different demographics – especially after a less than satisfactory theatrical run.
A spy-thriller about an innocent man out to clear his name, after he becomes entangled in an international espionage conspiracy. Other Hitchcock works, namely “North by Northwest” and his earlier “The Lodger” also involve innocent men caught in a web of murder and deception who are the only ones capable of clearing their names. Variations of this theme are evident in his other films, such as “Psycho” or “Vertigo” where the protagonists stumble into dangerous territory uknowingly, albeit, not innocently. Hollywood films as a recent as “Enemy of the State” by director Tony Scott* use the same plot device, going so far as including subtle references to Hitchcock’s original: in one scene Will Smith has to change clothes that might give him away to his pursuers. A similar scene in “Steps” has the hero dawn a darker suit to help him hide in the shadows as he avoids the police in the highlands. The film stands out mostly for its elaborate and suspenseful chase sequences, which make up a substantial portion of the film. Hitchcock and his collaborators also find the time for a few clever twists and turns to generate mystery and conflict the likes of which continue to influence filmmakers to this day.
—-
*Tony Scott often quotes classic cinema in his own films, including a visual reference to “Hell’s Hinges” (1915) in “Man on Fire” (2004)
The spy genre is one of the most under-appreciated in cinema. The infamous double-o seven might be a household name but he can hardly be called a spy. He is the indestructible agent belonging to the action adventure variety, more like spy-fantasy. He is witty, charming, and dangerous but only manages to escape “certain death” because his adversaries are so insanely incompetent. The spy genre is one of deception, despair and untimely death. Typically the agent faces odds and obstacles he is unable to fathom, nevermind overcome. “Three Days of the Condor,” “The Russia House,” and most recently “The Good Sheppard” all of them tragedies with heroes who wager their lives and their souls in the espionage game.
None, however, as icy and tense as Martin Ritt’s 1965 film starring Richard Burton as the disillusioned veteran spy, Alec Leamas. The film’s slow, methodical pacing perfectly captures the uncertainty and frustration of the espionage game. The audience is kept on a need-to-know basis with the filmmakers. However, Ritt and his collaborators are not tricksters; they do not withhold key information only to spring it on an unsuspecting audience for the sake of a twist ending. Instead, they’re strategy is to offer only bits and pieces of important information – the set up – and debrief us after the fact – the reveal. This runs parallel to the story where Alex Leamas is permitted to know only so much at one time allowing the audience to easily sympathize with the protagonist, despite his disreputable profession. The tragedy lies, of course, in the revelation that arrives too late; too late for regrets, for second chances or redemption.
The film is a thriller in the broadest sense. There is a chase, a ticking clock but you never see how much time is left and pounding the pavement or burning rubber only gets you killed faster. Hell, even your wits might not save you. The spy is worth a little less than a pawn and as Leamas explains early on, it’s the innocent, the unassuming citizens, that get caught in the crossfire. “The Spy Who Came in from the Cold” is a sobering examination not only of the Cold War but that romantic notion in the culture of the spy, immediately following the success of “Dr. No” and “From Russia With Love.” Its no mistake that this film should follow in Bond’s wake; Ritt casts a moustached Bernard Lee – Bond’s taskmaster “M” – in a small but significant role of a grocer, who takes a nasty beating from Leamas early in the picture.
One of the best films on the subject and perhaps one of the most compelling character studies I have seen in a long time. Burton and the cast are excellent, delivering frosty, unassuming performances reinforced by the stark and sterile cinematography and careful use of music and set design.
Posted by martin baena 
Posted by martin baena 
Posted by martin baena 
