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.