Nightcrawler (2014) ****/5: This film could have been more definitive in exploring the nightlife of L.A but instead it commoditizes the media product that comes with nightcrawling and does not make it relatable apart from the ruthless business practices adopted by those that seek to accumulate capital at the expense of others.

Nightcrawler is a good film and one that media junkies will like but it never blew me away.  It provides some insight into the nightcrawler profession where the news is merely a commodity regardless of the dire human subject at its core. These nightcrawlers come equipped with their cameras to the scene where some destructive action has taken place. This makes it newsworthy and so the first one to the scene will be able to capture the immediate aftermath and so be in a better position to sell the footage to a broadcasting news company. Like I said it’s interesting but too often it appeared to be a just a description of what is required to succeed. What makes this film stand out from its merely descriptive mould is the character Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal ) who, due to his quirks,  raises a lot of moral quandaries and not necessarily legal ones.

Lou Bloom, an alienated individual,  is drawn to this profession and in his rise to success he reveals his misanthropic tendencies that make him into another capitalist savage.  His complete disregard for human beings coincides with his rise to prominence in the nightcrawler field. In the end it’s a business like any other and the route to success is the same although the product might involve a different approach to accumulating capital. It still requires labour (variable capital), an investment in capital equipment and raw materials (constant capital) and a way to reach the market in a timely manner so that you can out maneuver your competitors meaning turn over time is crucial.

Positives

There are several commendable things about this film and they all surround the business of nightcrawling. This profession however does not stand out beyond the first minutes when it was presented to me. Through the character of Lou the film demonstrated how ruthless you have to be to be successful especially when your competitors have a head start. Watching Lou’s climb to the top was an example of how success often comes at a price and that to be successful on the basis of private property sometimes one has to do questionable things to preserve your well being.  Lou’s actions might seem questionable from a moral standpoint but when most of us are faced with the scenario where we have to preserve our own self interest that comes with our accumulated store of privately owned property few of us can walk away and leave. We will defend it because it is our bread and butter or a significant part of our lives.  Let me note that private property can e what you represent. For example the majority  working class  and the professional groups, that comprise the petty bourgeois/middle class ranks of society,  rely on selling their labour, no matter how complex, to those that own the means of production, whether  it be the private capitalist class or the government  machinery.  All they have is what their labour represents or their labour power that  valorizes capital. The value of the labour power sold  to capital depends on how much surplus value/unpaid labour time can be extracted from these workers with the aid of various capital investments. This concept associated with the defense of private property in the film is represented well by Nina (Rene Russo) whose reputation depends on how she can improve rating for the broadcast news station. This is how she develops a close relationship with Lou who reminds her of their mutual dependence on each other in order to attain success. This would also explain why she tolerates Lou’s excesses because she sees in him, or he makes her see, a lot of herself, her ruthless drive for success.

I liked the character of Rick (Riz Ahmed)  who is more or less, a representative of the brutalized working classes that exist on the fringes of society and are mercilessly exploited. It is clear from the beginning when he is begins to develop a working relationship with Lou that he will be ruthlessly exploited and this becomes very evident towards the end. I was not very shocked because I understand that for the capitalist to succeed the worker must be sacrificed because the capitalist must make a profit and he can’t do that when the worker is demanding an ever greater share of the proceeds. The film ably demonstrates how the two, capital and labour,  are mutually dependent on each other and how the two become the source of the system’s contradictions. The relationship between Rick (Labour) and Lou (Capital) demonstrate these contradictions well. Although Lou does do a lot of the work which would characterize him as a worker he also owns the equipment and it is clear that his goal is to reach the top where others work on his behalf

Joe (Bill Paxton) represents Lou’s competition and he is a great element in the story because competition drives the baseness in market driven capitalism. Competition also pushes boundaries in a particular field of capital because each opponent is trying to outdo the other to be successful. The competition between Lou and Joe has consequences.

The film does present some interesting moral quandaries particularly the question how far do we go in order to be successful in a particular field? Do we acknowledge that there are some lines we do not cross? If we do cross them then what does it all mean? I can’t spoil everything but suffice to say the film does not address these issues sufficiently because some of the actions in the film will be a moral issue for the conservative element but not necessarily for those that understand what is sometimes required for success. Lou’s disdain for humanity which is reminiscent of characters such as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver (See my review) is the perfect tool to examine this moral quandary. In order for him to be successful  he has to push boundaries which might involve him not connecting much with certain aspects of his humanity, or compassion for others. It allows him to be a capitalist savage. You have an issue that is hampering your business deal with it within the confines of the law but don’t worry too much about the moral issue or who you might hurt along the way. This is the approach taken by Lou. Although we first see him as a very good thief at the beginning it is clear from the start that he wants to go legit.  He uses the nightcrawler business as a way to do this. In the end he is very successful at what he does although he did questionable things along the way.

In the end this film, despite the nightcrawling element,  discusses how one can become a successful capitalist that owns some portion of the means of production and labour power to do your bidding. The news footage captured by the nightcrawlers is another commodity and when something becomes commoditized it loses touch with the humanist elements that formed the basis of its origins. Once something becomes commoditized it becomes a vehicle for the accumulation of capital. The questionable actions of Lou centre on the principle that he is accumulating footage as a commodity that can be sold which can make him more money and give him a insider track into the legit world.  This is why he shows disregard for those enduring plight because regardless of how dramatic the footage is all Lou sees is a commodity that can be sold at the right price.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is that the nightcrawling aspect is commoditized instead of humanized. It is great that there are some interesting things captured for the news, particularly a spectacular murder, but it never really goes to core of the fact that the city comes alive at night. Lou’s alienated approach to humanity makes it appear even more commoditized as he disregards his humanity and that’s fine but there is no other perspective that offers much insight into the  nightlife being covered and what causes it to come alive. At least Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver made some commentary on the underbelly of night life when he said the ‘Animals come out at night’.  He even interacts directly with the night life through Iris. You got a sense of the nightlife and how it can be a very depressing environment for the industrial reserve army or those cast out on the fringes of bourgeois society.  There is nothing like this in Nightcrawler and we are only treated with a detached approach and a few moral quandaries but never a full engagement with the night life.  Apart from Lou’s desperation to stand out and defeat his competitors, or those he considers as threats, there is not much edge to the story. When the directors commoditize the news footage, through Lou, there is actually a detachment not an engagement with the night life in L.A. This is why I liked the character Rick but he is not developed beyond his service to Lou. He is ruthlessly exploited but it is not tragic from the perspective of the night life featured in nightcrawler but ruthless from the perspective of how the worker is sacrificed so that Lou can accumulate capital.

What I mean is that by commoditizing the news footage makes it into another commodity for capital.  The news footage in this film is a commodity with a use value that must be exchanged in the market so that capital can be valorized. In capital it does not normally matter what commodity is sold as long as it has some social value which will make it exchangeable in the market. You also get a sense that lou enters this field not just because nightcrawling offers great insights into night life but that it allows you to accumulate capital due to the news footage commodity. This is why the detachment made me less interested in nightcrawlng but the business side of it. We see that clearly when Lou loves to have a go at Nina to give make him more prominent in the news business in exchange for……  So by the end lou appears to be just another capitalist with the nightcrawling element giving him that outlet to accumulate capital. If you look at it from the perspective of how capital is accumulated then Lou’s detachment and lack of concern is quite normal because in his mind all the footage is commoditized and a way to make money. All of the questionable moral things that he does are just a way to get an edge in the market. It has nothing to do with what the nightcrawling element that can teach us about nightlife in L.A.  We have seen characters like this, such as Daniel Plainview in There Will be Blood. He was just as ruthless when he wanted to accumulate capital but at least that film brought forward a certain element of the social life that Plainview encountered. It was brought forward in such a way that he could not disregard it and brought him into conflict with the dynamics of the religious culture in the country side. In Nightcrawler Lou only has to contend with a police officer that tries to unnerve him into revealing his underhanded methods. this could have been the real conflict but instead it resolves into a moral quandary. If it clashed with the legal framework of society then it would be something quite interesting and would have added some dimension to the profession of nightcrawling. Is this type of business even regulated? Questions like that never really emerged in the presentation.

In the end Nightcrawler could have been more definitive in exploring  the nightlife of L.A but instead it commoditizes the media product that comes with nightcrawling and does not make it relatable apart from the ruthless business practices adopted by those that seek to accumulate capital at the expense of others.

Interstellar (2014) ****/5: Captures the imagination of those that star gaze and wonder about their place in the universe but is overcooked in parts and underwhelming in others.

In Interstellar we finally have a film that takes as its premise our place in the universe and the inevitable fact  that we won’t survive forever on earth in this solar system. Even if the film itself is overcooked or lopsided, in parts, the topic of interstellar travel will become increasingly important in the next 20, 000 years or so if we’re still around. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long and humans have burnt very brightly in our short stay on earth.  The solar system itself will eventually die when the vast energy of the sun is extinguished.  A lot of documentaries that discuss the vastness of the universe make it clear that human kind must search for a new home in the cosmos. The distance to be covered is vast, however,  hence why we must first look for signs of life in our own solar system such as on the planet Mars or on the Saturn moon, Titan. It will be difficult for us to consider travel beyond this solar system for now because our Milky Way Galaxy is so huge there is not much of a chance in our human form unless you can learn to cover great distances in quick time. In  Interstellar there is a wormhole located close to Saturn that opens the door for the exploration of other galaxies and planets. Wormholes have been used in sci-fi films before as a means to allow our great space heroes to travel great distances however Christopher Nolan &co. have applied a rigorous scientific basis for it.

Interstellar is a film about a group of explorers led by Cooper (Matthew MCconaughey) and Dr. Brand (Anne Hathaway) that take a trip to another galaxy, through a mysterious wormhole near Saturn,  in search of other planets that could support life so that they can rescue the humans  on a earth whose environment is growing increasingly hostile to life on earth. The trip takes place at a time when space exploration in the near future is considered a waste of time and the production of food more important since the planet strangely ran out. It is a dust bowl sort of future with advanced technology flourishing underground in a  Nasa base.  At the heart of the film is the relationship between Cooper and his daughter, Murph (Jessica Chastain,  with Mckenzie Foy playing the younger version) which addresses the issue of the power and endurance of  the love humans have for each other; a love that can cover all sort of space –time distances.

If Nolan was a bit more daring with the human story he would have made a towering piece of work from an emotional point of view. It still captures, magnificently, the scientific basis for space exploration apart from the mystic elements related to some 5^th dimension. The black hole was the high point of the film in terms of spectacle.

Positives

The primary positives were the visual and scientific bases for space exploration. The scene featuring the ship moving along the surface of a black hole (which is an accurate depiction of what scientists expect black holes to look like) is something to behold.  The look of the two planets explored look more artistic than realistic but are certainly eye candy particularly the planet covered mostly in ice. The tidal wave sequence was  interesting as well but it seemed too convenient as if Nolan intended those huge waves for an Imax presentation. Not everyone, like myself, will watch the film in IMAX and so the awe  of seeing  such a massive tidal wave in all its grandeur was never there for me. I know deep down that Nolan made that sequence explicitly for IMAX and so it’s a bit too manipulative.  The question I have though is:  How can there be a planet that is composed primarily of water or ice? Is there a scientific basis for this or was it just an artistic creation? This is what I could never come to terms with although the scenery was great to look at.

This film does well to capture the imagination that comes when we look up at the stars and that is commendable.

The explanation for what a wormhole is expected to look like was also well done. I liked how it represents this distortion in the space time continuum as it manipulates the environment around it. I was not so impressed by the actual journey through the wormhole because it seemed like a typical sci-fi episode to me although it is supposed to be scientifically based..

I also liked the human element related to love and conflict. This is seen primarily through the relationship between Cooper and Murph but there is a bit of surprise involving Dr. Brand and her own tale of love that truly challenges the scientific basis and has certain consequences for the mission when the characters decide to follow the scientific lead as opposed to the emotional one. This leads to all sorts of surprises particularly on the ice planet where the team find the lone survivor of a previous mission, Dr. Mann (Matt Damon). These were some of the best moments when it concerned the conflict scenarios in the film. It also demonstrates how easily misled the team was from a scientific basis.  The relationship between Murph and Cooper was a good one but it could have been more effective if Nolan took certain risks.  The relationship actually hinders the film in some way. The mystery surrounding Professor Brand (Michael Caine) is also interesting. It is made more interesting because he likes to repeat a particular quote by Dylan Thomas. Sometimes it's funny.

The presentation of the future earth was interesting but limited in my opinion. It’s interesting to see that technology takes a back seat to large scale farming which is not normally the case. NASA, as we know it, is home to some of the most advanced technology on earth and it is forced underground due to food priorities. According to Cooper humans have become a generation of caretakers instead of explorers and pioneers. According to his father in law (John Lithgow) there was a time when the latest technological gadget was always celebrated like christmas. Now humankind is compelled strictly by necessity. The fantasy of capitalism and its scientific and technological advances are a thing of past. That is a very interesting viewpoint of the future suggesting that capitalism is the beacon of light within us and that without it we will languish  in the realm of dire necessity. I never knew that Nolan was a spokesman for capitalism now. The farming  in this film does not seem capitalist at all because the farmers are not seen as accumulators of wealth with their large cornfields they are seen as uneducated, ignorant individuals, which is a perception normally associated with the past not the future.

Negatives

The primary negatives of this film  are associated with a narrow viewpoint and a overextended one.

The narrow viewpoints come with the presentation of a dying earth.  I was not convinced that earth was dying or that human kind was dying out. In this film dust storms and an increase of nitrogen in the atmosphere are the only indicators of disaster but that’s not enough particularly as the only part of the earth that’s featured is Cooper’s farm. What is going on in the other parts of the world? We can’t just take the viewpoint of NASA, seeking to justify the need for exploration, as the only acceptable explanation. It is too convenient because here in Jamaica I want to know what’s going on. Is it that we must see NASA, an American organization,  as our savior? There is no collaboration with the phenomenal scientific talents of other countries. Not even the Europeans are featured in the collaboration process which is very strange. It seems that America is dying out and needs to find a new home not all of human kind. The morale being that if America finds its feet then the world will be saved. So I never really understood how all of the earth is dying out or what changes lead to the increasingly hostile environment. The scientific basis of this aspect is wrong in my opinion and I say that without being an expert. I take the viewpoints of the geologists featured on many documentaries that make it clear that our time here is a mere  moment for  the  earth’s timeline. It is difficult to accept that in the 21^st century we will suddenly have a dying earth or an earth unable to support life when the prognostication is that the earth will be around for a long time in all its glory. If human beings stay around for the next 20, 000 years we will still find an earth able to support life; the real changes will come millions of years from now.  This bias of human centrism associated with sci-fi films such as this only obscures the issue without explaining it properly. Yes Nolan needed some basis to go off into space but it all comes crashing down when you realize that there was no real reason to leave in the first place apart from a situation concocted by the writers who claim that this film is scientifically based.  

Is this film a propaganda tool for capitalism? It seems so because the farmers are considered uneducated and ignorant in a future that focuses primarily on food production. Did capitalism disappear because of climate change? What happened to all the great centres of commerce and industry? Capitalism must have disappeared because it does not seem as if Cooper and his family are planting acres of corn for profit or they would be rich with all that acreage under cultivation. One would expect that the technological foundation laid by capitalism would still remain in the future instead of being forced underground.  Nolan really ignored a detailed presentation of earth for an excuse to leave it.

Are we also to believe that a wormhole was left there for us to explore other galaxies? I went into the film with the expectation that this wormhole would be a normal scientific anomaly only to hear that it was left there by divine beings from the 5^th dimension. Instead of encouraging space exploration this film can make it seem like a waste of time. Why haven’t we exhausted the possibilities of our own solar system?  Why do we have to rely on some empty equation to solve the issue of gravity? It is clear that covering large distances in space will not come with wormholes based on how the film  explains it but by advanced technology that can allow us to travel at very fast, sustainable speeds and with adequate fuel reserves. I would rather take my chances with developing ships that can travel at light speed than waiting for a wormhole to be left for us by divine elements.  Wait we’re back at the old Sci-fi premise of interstellar travel and Nolan with his realistic account has made those premises more believable.  Very interesting.

Nolan also overstretched the divine element in this film with too much explanation. ‘They’ , as the divine beings are normally referred to , left this wormhole for us and also left the answers  in the heart of a black hole. I agree with one particular critic, although I can’t remember his name, that Kubrick understood in 2001: A Space Odyssey that you have to keep things vague but be firm in your presentation. You have to leave some mystery. This is why the ending of Inception was more effective. It left open many possibilities.  Nolan tries to explain everything, even the divine origins of the universe. Not even he is that smart. In Kubrick’s case we left in search of a divine being that kept pushing us onward as a species. It was not deliberately pushing us to force a mass exodus from earth. It was  igniting that drive to go further and change what we thought of ourselves by having us go further into the unknown.  The divine being was something we could relate to in a strange fascinating way because the monolith remained mysterious. In  Nolan’s case  we are given strange explanations as a basis for Cooper to be reunited with his daughter.  The element of love becomes a hokey device but it also becomes a platform for interesting designs on Nolan’s part.  It is because Nolan tried to explain everything that people are now looking for all sort of plot holes. ‘How did this happen?’ etc.  it would have been more effective if the beings from another dimension did not exist just the dimension itself. A dimension we could use to manipulate space and time.

 Nolan  could have been more daring in his presentation of the father daughter relationship by not making them reunite in body but in spirit . Firstly, the film would have been stronger if he left to lay the foundations for colonization of new planets instead of finding the planets and then desperately trying to return home.  This is hinted at towards the end.  If he desperately tried to return home then he would be blocked by some form of conflict such as the disappearance of the wormhole etc.  Yes he would relay the information to the earth but he would have to come to terms with a new form of settlement.  He would let them know that he could not return and that he hoped they would eventually use the equation for the massive exodus from earth. He would know the risks he was taking.  The people of earth would join him later or maybe by then he and Brand would have been long gone leaving their footprints behind. The daughter would be proud and would have accepted his decision to leave her. Do they really expect us to believe that you can move 6 billion people by solving some equation about gravity? I wonder what an abandoned earth looks like?

I just made that suggestion to imply that Nolan could have gone all out and really make the emotional impact heartfelt. In the end Cooper and his team would be known as great explorers and pioneers without having to return to earth. 

In terms of explanation Nolan could have provided us with more visual illustrations. Not enough of the concept are translated visually hence why people get lost in the middle.

A lot of the characters are disposable in this film. My favourite character was Romily (David Gyasi) but he and the other astronaut are easily disposed of. This should not be the case if everything did not centre on Cooper reuniting with his daughter.

In the end Nolan overcooked this film in parts and under cooked in some with the result being that there are some moments to behold and those where you have to question whether this is just a propaganda tool.  All this mystery surrounding the plot was not worth it in the end.