The Newsroom: Preaching to a Choir

I watched the first episode of The Newsroom with my wife last night. The best part of the experience was when we laughed at Sam Waterson going off on the most annoying character of the show: "I'm a Marine, Don! I will beat the shit out of you, I don't care how many protein bars you eat!" I found myself clinging to the hope that Waterson would beat the shit out of somebody, maybe everybody, involved in the show.

The beginning of The Newsroom starts out well enough. Creator Aaron Sorkin does a good job of showing how political debate in the United States goes stupid. Actor Jeff Daniels is in the middle of this stupid debate. When probed by a student and moderator about what makes America the greatest country in the world, Daniels goes on a rant about how America isn't that great. He cites a lot of depressing statistics and fires at liberals and conservatives. His rant (as unenlightening as it is) then turns embarrassingly sentimental - the sappy dialogue and music brought to mind the "Lesson for the Day" denouements of sitcoms like Family Matters.

The self-importance and lack of intellect that creator Aaron Sorkin displays here is outstanding. It's easy to suggest America is or isn't the greatest country in the world. But here's the truth: any question about the greatest country in the world is idiotic. Who has lived in every country in the world? Who knows everything about every country in the world? These are questions that Sorkin should've raised, but instead I am reminded of Steve Urkel.

Sorkin fumbles again when the BP oil spill comes up. He uses incredible coincidences involving the college roommate and big sister of a character just to be smug about the disaster. I think any reasonable human being knows the oil spill was a travesty, but anyone who disagrees would either a) never watch The Newsroom anyway or b) scoff at Sorkin's smugness.

As a cultural statement, The Newsroom will inspire those who worship the United States to continue their blind faith and know-it-all people to masturbate to depressing statistics. Based on the pilot, it is an irresponsible and, worse, insipid show. We are better off catching another pair of knockers on Game of Thrones.

'Black Swan': Darren Aronofsky's Fake Masterpiece

“Watch the way she moves. Imprecise but … effortless. She’s not faking it.” This is how ballet director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) describes one of his dancers in Darren Aronofsky’s 2010 film, "Black Swan." If only Leroy’s quote could apply to Aronofsky. With incredible precision, Aronofsky has convinced many critics and fans that "Black Swan" is a work of art. In reality, the film is a sorry and unoriginal horror exercise.   

One of the more absurd bits of praise for "Black Swan" is that it compares well to Roman Polanski’s "Repulsion" (for examples, see here and here).  While both "Black Swan" and "Repulsion" concern a woman with a crumbling mind, and while both films have cinematography that effectively conveys anxiety, Aronofsky cheapens psychology, as well as art, by having protagonist Nina Sayers kill herself in the pursuit of her dream as a lead ballerina in Tchaikovsky’s "Swan Lake." Polanski, a survivor of the Holocaust, doesn’t confuse nightmares with the pursuit of dreams.

On a more obvious level, Aronofsky isn’t subtle or tasteful like Polanski. He doesn’t trust his audience’s intelligence like Polanski, who used a seemingly innocent family picture to suggest sexual abuse in "Repulsion." But that by itself doesn't allow one to understand the artistic distance between the two directors. Because there is no subtlety in "Black Swan" (right down to its superficial connection to Tchaikovsky’s "Swan Lake"), we must look at something in the film that approaches Repulsion stylistically: the use of visual effects.

A comparison of visual effects reveals Aronofsky as a hack and Polanski as a genius. Aronofsky primarily uses visual effects to illustrate Nina Sayers’ transformation into an artist, even though her transformation is preposterous from a conceptual standpoint. People don't quickly become artists through masturbation, drinking, and lesbianism (though I support all three activities in their proper places). Her transformation is also silly from a visual standpoint. We see Sayers morph into a black swan gradually with effects that recall David Cronenberg’s "The Fly." However, the similarity with Cronenberg ends there. Aronofsky’s effects are only there as a road map for the audience – you know, in case we’re too dumb to “get it.” This condescending approach culminates when Sayers, on stage during her great final performance, becomes a glossy black swan. This effect has little power besides awkwardness. One gets none of the dread that Cronenberg elicits with the final stage of Jeff Goldblum’s transformation in "The Fly," and wonder isn't at play, either, given that the effect is obviously an effect. In this way, Aronofosky is no better than George Lucas or James Cameron. In contrast, Polanski primarily uses visual effects in "Repulsion" to illustrate the mental deterioration of his protagonist. His effects show us what his protagonist thinks she is seeing: cracks in the walls (multiplying over time) and hands reaching out of walls to fondle her. Polanski didn't have Aronofsky’s budget, but his simplicity is effective and doesn't assume anything about the audience.

To be fair, Aronofsky attempts to show us what Sayers thinks she is seeing in "Black Swan." But whereas Polanski is honest and clear about his protagonist’s hallucinations, Aronofsky reveals Sayers’ self-destruction in a clichéd plot twist. Neither you nor Sayers really knows what’s happening until she realizes she is killing herself rather than murdering someone for gain. This sudden awareness is a cheap twist that appeared in "Fight Club," "Secret Window," "High Tension," and "The Machinist," to name a few recent examples. Ironically, Aronofsky was more straightforward with "The Fountain," a film with three interlocking stories.

If the ending of "Black Swan" is uninspired due to a conventional plot twist, the overall content of "Black Swan" is monotonous due to Aronofsky’s previous film, "The Wrestler." The protagonists of both films are obsessive artists who end up dying for their art (some would say "The Wrestler’s" ending is ambiguous, but in reality it’s tasteful rather than vague). The difference between the two films lies in their levels of futility. At least Mickey Rourke’s Robin Ramzinski bonds with his fellow wrestlers and appears to have fun wrestling. Natalie Portman’s Nina Sayers doesn't even seem to enjoy ballet. She's been in the ballet company longer than anyone (according to her mother), yet she has virtually no friends or support. She is abused and hurt in almost every situation. Her most pleasurable moment, the lesbianism scene, is revealed to be a fantasy. It's almost as if Aronofsky takes the emotional heaviness of "The Wrestler" and attempts to satirize it in the style of Martin Scorsese’s "After Hours." Indeed, I found it hard not to laugh during some scenes because Sayers rarely catches a break.

Is exploitation what Aronofsky wanted? You get the sense he wanted to say something more profound, but Nina Sayers is no Jesus Christ or Santiago. Her sensationalized plight illustrates nothing meaningful about the human condition. Sayers has her heart set on the lead role in "Swan Lake," but unlike Tchaikovsky’s original ballet, Aronofsky’s version isn't ultimately concerned with eternal love; "Black Swan" is concerned with death by art. Is this the same director who warned us about drug addiction in "Requiem for a Dream" and explored the intellectual and emotional sides of mourning in "The Fountain"? With "Black Swan," Aronofsky demonstrates that he has, if anything, become a more immature filmmaker.  

All the same, "Black Swan" gives one the impression that Aronofsky thinks of himself as a master. His reactionary words to critic Armond White - who dared to write a negative review of "Black Swan"! - at the 2011 New York Film Critics Awards are more evidence of his sense of entitlement (see here). Despite his pride, Aronofsky wants our approval, but he couldn’t wait for the real thing. When the screen goes white in "Black Swan," you can still hear the applause of Sayers’ audience as the words “Directed by Darren Aronofsky” appear.

Yep, he’s faking it.

'Paranormal Activity': The Anti-Cinema of Mockumentary Horror

"The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the first mockumentary horror film, but it started a revolution. Numerous documentary style and found footage horror movies have been made since the 1999 blockbuster, including hits like "Paranormal Activity" and "Cloverfield." The goal of these films is to heighten the horror by making events seem more real.

Last week my girlfriend Lacey and I had different reactions to "Paranormal Activity," which has spawned two follow-ups since its 2007 release ("Paranormal Activity 3" recently broke box office records). She was engaged during the film and very frightened afterward, but I thought I had just watched a silly television show. It was my first mockumentary horror film experience (I had only watched scenes from "The Blair Witch Project").

Our reactions stemmed from different beliefs and experiences. Lacey believes in the supernatural due to unexplained experiences she had more than a decade ago, so she is the ideal audience for director/writer Oren Peli. This is even clearer when you consider that she can handle non-mockumentary ghost movies like "Poltergeist" and "Insidious." For her, the faux documentary brings her closer to the real terror she felt many years ago.

Unfortunately, I am not the ideal audience for Peli. I don't believe in the supernatural because I've never seen anything out of the ordinary (though for one year I lived in a house that was said to be haunted). But that by itself doesn't explain why I wasn't captivated by Peli's approach. For example, even though I wasn't scared during "Poltergeist" or its half-assed imitator "Insidious," they interested me. On the other hand, "Paranormal Activity" didn't have my attention until its deadly ending. The reason is simple: I believe in cinema, and "Paranormal Activity" is not cinema.

******

One year after the mockumentary horror film exploded onto the scene with "The Blair Witch Project," reality television made its stamp on American television with "Survivor" and "Big Brother." This one-two illustrates a significant cultural phenomenon. Since 1999, more and more people have wanted films and television to be more real. For them, it makes viewing more entertaining and exciting.

Although "mockumentary" is most often used to describe comedies that satirize culture - films like "This Is Spinal Tap" and "Bruno" - I find the term even more suitable for this new wave of horror movies and reality television. These things mock reality in the most technical sense. During the first season of the hit television series "Survivor," I remember people getting off on the real interactions between the contestants. Hell, I remember getting off on the second season in Australia myself, mainly because it had this real crazy guy who killed a pig and smeared its blood on his face. But this man probably wouldn't have killed a pig and made such a spectacle if not for the show. Of course, we must consider the possibility that the whole thing was staged. But fuck it, right? It was the presentation and inclusion of no-name people that made "Survivor" more real for viewers. (I say "more real" instead of "more realistic" because the former is associated with the belief or perception that something is actually happening. "Realism," on the other hand, refers to art that depicts subjects as empirical reflections of reality.)

This is not to say everyone who watches reality television takes it seriously as drama. From my own observations, many people are more likely to laugh at reality television's subjects. It's cheap entertainment. But the phenomenon started from the idea that, yes, we are watching something that is more real than a sitcom or drama. And for what it's worth, reality television is more real than any silly-ass sitcom.

But the mockumentary horror film is taken as seriously (if not more so) as it was when "The Blair Witch Project" made millions. Some people who scoff at "The Blair Witch Project" are affected by the "Paranormal Activity" films. I think the main reason for this is that "Paranormal Activity" allows one to see everything more clearly; "The Blair Witch Project" is notorious for its shaky camera. In this way, "The Blair Witch Project" is pure anti-cinema.

There's that word again. What does cinema mean? For me, it means the work of many wonderful filmmakers and the standards they set. D.W. Griffith, John Ford, Akira Kurosawa, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Federico Fellini, Francios Truffaut, Steven Spielberg, and Werner Herzog (who knows a thing or two about blurring the line between feature film and documentary), to name a few. Cinema represents the idea that film can do anything and make us feel a wide range of emotions by appealing to our most immediate sense: sight. The term also sets what we know as film apart from any other medium (please note the following is an incomplete list): literature, music, painting, and, oh yeah, television.

Critic Pauline Kael once remarked about the detrimental influence of television on film in her essential piece of film criticism, "Trash, Art, and the Movies": "Television is a very noisy medium and viewers listen, while getting used to a poor quality of visual reproduction, to the absence of visual detail, to visual obviousness and overemphasis on simple compositions, and to atrociously simplified and distorted color systems. The shifting camera styles, the movement, and the fast cutting of a film like 'Finian’s Rainbow'—one of the better big productions—are like the 'visuals' of TV commercials, a disguise for static material, expressive of nothing so much as the need to keep you from getting bored and leaving. Men are now beginning their careers as directors by working on commercials—which, if one cares to speculate on it, may be almost a one-sentence résumé of the future of American motion pictures."

Kael's comments can be applied to "The Blair Witch Project." Indeed, the story and thematic content of the film are so bare that the producers needed a shaky camera to keep people's attention. "[A]bsence of visual detail" and "static material" is "The Blair Witch Project" in a nutshell. We could even speculate that the main reason people distiguish it from television is that it was marketed and released as a theatrical movie.

So where does that leave "Paranormal Activity"? Well, I have to give it credit to an extent. It did set a higher standard for mockumentary horror films. For one thing, it's not "very noisy" or lacking "visual detail" in a sense. The noises in "Paranormal Activity" are doled out slowly, and as mentioned before, the film doesn't suffer from a shaky camera. I can see why the film spellbinds people. Its camera, unlike the cameras in normal feature films, is an object in the purest sense. In many scenes, the camera doesn't show you anything but what's happening in a bedroom while a couple sleeps (or tries to sleep), and we know it's not going to move unless something we're seeing tampers with it. The film gives the illusion that we're forced to watch malevolent forces unfold in real time. Whereas in a traditional horror movie, the camera is magic, separate from the scene - we trust the director to show us what we need to see.

However, I wasn't spellbound by the mockumentary approach. "Paranormal Activity" has an unoriginal, paper-thin story with characters who don't say or do anything interesting. The film didn't seem to comment on anything culturally relevant (though Slate critic Dana Stevens theorized it was a metaphor for the credit crisis - interesting, but I disagree). The editing has no rhythm; the film is shot from an exceptionally normal perspective for the illusion of realness, with choppiness to boot. But the biggest problem was how the film killed suspense. During the bedroom scenes, you can see the camera's clock in the low right-hand corner. The "scene" fast-forwards as the clock numbers roll. The scene resumes when the clock stops rolling, letting you know when to expect ghostly activity. The technique is a converse of the instant replay, which drove the film's relationship to television even further home for me.

******

Last night Lacey and I watched "Paranormal Activity 2." Admittedly, it held my attention more than the first because it had more action, characters, and camera perspectives (the father sets up security cameras in the house), but I was struck by the fact that it had a different director. Peli is replaced by Tod Williams, but you can't tell a difference in directorial style. This uniformness reminded me of how television shows change directors while retaining the same stylistic elements. Mockumentary horror films appeal to individual beliefs and experiences while rejecting the individuality of cinema as a personal artform.

I could discuss the numerous cinematic limitations of "Paranormal Activity" and its kind for hours, but the reality is that the horror film and audience expectations have changed. I just hold to the hope that if this new wave of horror movies continues to take over, we, as a filmmaking and filmgoing culture, will not forget the past - that we will learn about it and from it.

'Ironclad' starts strong but becomes tedious, hypocritical

In a way, it's impressive “Ironclad” (2011) is mediocre instead of plain shitty. The film had an almost completely different cast before financing got tricky, and there are 18 executive producers in its credits. So when the squire Guy says "We held" after a tough victory, you can imagine the creative team saying the same thing.

The story of “Ironclad's” production is inspiring, but director/writer Jonathan English only makes a halfway decent historical action film. The plot concerns a Templar knight, Thomas Marshal (James Purefoy), who helps lead an effort to stop King John (an entertaining Paul Giamatti) from killing the barons who forced him to sign the Magna Carta. Marshal and Baron William de Albany (the great Brian Cox) form a group similar to that of Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" and fortify Rochester Castle, King John's main target. Meanwhile, Lady Isabel (Kate Mara) is unsatisfied with her husband, the constable of Rochester. The last part sticks out because it's a pointless subplot that destroys the morality of the film.

English directs a good film for an hour or so. He emphasizes action, but the bits of dialogue are often meaningful. The best parts involve Marshal and the squire Guy. During one exchange, Marshal tells Guy it is not noble to kill. Guy asks, "Not even when it's done for freedom?" Marshal replies, "Not even when it is done for God." This line shows honor that wasn't present in Mel Gibson's “Braveheart.” Later, when Guy broods after his first kill, Marshal consoles him: "Faith, Guy. Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men." This line counters the cynicism in Clint Eastwood's “Unforgiven,” in which William Munny doesn't share anything as insightful with the Schofield Kid.

The action in “Ironclad” is interesting at first. Although the setting and parts of the battles recall Peter Jackson’s “The Two Towers,” English’s visual style is more intense and visceral. The weapons in “Ironclad” don’t neatly slice and chop flesh and bone. One of the seven heroes, Jedediah Coteral, even uses a severed arm as a weapon. You almost find yourself believing so few men can defend Rochester Castle. That is, until the portcullis is raised under the heroes' noses and everything goes to shit. Then you have a select few survivors doing the improbable. The main problem is not believability, however. The last action scenes simply do not raise your pulse like those in Takashi Miike's “13 Assassins,” John Woo's “The Killer,” or Sam Peckinpah's “The Wild Bunch.” The outcome is predictable, but the greater flaw is that “Ironclad” offers nothing noteworthy after King John sets a bunch of pigs on fire to take out the castle's keep. Shouldn't our heroes do something as electrifying?

English compromises the morality he sets up in “Ironclad.” Marshal makes a good hero of few words, but his honor is lost when he gives into the advances of Lady Isabel (a name very close to Jezebel, the infamous woman in The Bible). Marshal resists Isabel several times because he has taken a sacred vow not to have sex. Isabel eventually convinces him he should not deny his desires. Nevermind that she's married. Nevermind that the heroes of the movie are fighting because King John failed to live up to his word. The sad thing is Purefoy and Mara have chemistry and lose it after their characters have sex (the funny thing is not even an adolescent would defend the sex – no tits!). English wastes an opportunity to illustrate the honor of Marshal and instead suggests vows aren't important, that one should do whatever one wants, just like King John, Marshal, and Isabel. Not to mention Isabel has no characterization other than her tingling vagina. But at least it’s understandable when Marshal fucks Isabel. In an earlier scene, he leaves the castle to get food … without telling anyone. Marshal says all the right things to Guy, but his decisions outside of battle are questionable. “Ironclad” pretends this moral discrepancy doesn’t exist.

English should be commended for seeing his film through production hell, but if he wants to be successful in crafting action art, he must come up with something more heroic than the second half of “Ironclad.” Even though the good guys win, their victory is hollow.

Genre and Politics in '13 Assassins'

It’s rather cool that “13 Assassins” is reminiscent of both “Seven Samurai” and “The Wild Bunch,” further reinforcing the connection between the samurai and western. Moral codes. Honor. Sentimentality. There’s a scene in “13 Assassins” of samurai being forced away by the sight of guns – a historical point with much to say about our postmodern culture that was created by numerous technological advances. Out with the old, in with the new. Not only does the scene invoke Kurosawa and Peckinpah, but it trumps the argument that the action film can’t be for thinkers.

But what makes “13 Assassins” electrifying is the stamp of Takashi Miike, an incredibly prolific director (about 40 movies since 2000!) who ignores the line between the highbrow and lowbrow. For the most part, “13 Assassins” is impressive from a technical standpoint, but Miike throws in CGI bulls on fire, an effect that really looks like shit. If I had seen such a thing in any other historical epic, you would likely be reading a mini-rant now. But in this case I remember that Miike has directed many direct-to-video productions. His lack of taste, if anything, has made the world of film more interesting and funny.

I don’t want to mislead you, though. “13 Assassins” is one of Miike’s most accessible films. The humor is sharp rather than demented. While the film is very violent, the level of violence is comparable to movies like “Saving Private Ryan.” As in “Seven Samurai,” the good guys are introduced one by one; this formula, for whatever reason, is always fun.

As agreeable as the film is to general audiences, I couldn’t help but notice subversive elements. With films like “Ichi the Killer” and “Izo,” Miike is as satirical as he is fond of genre. In “13 Assassins,” the samurai poses are very obvious (and thus awesome), but the coolness is countered by some of the deaths that follow. I found myself relishing the genre glory but losing the high moments later. Early on, images of an amputated victim approach the territory of “Audition,” Miike’s horror masterpiece.

In interviews Miike has deflected the idea that his work has social commentary. Nonetheless, “13 Assassins” touches on a few political morals. For example, the major question is whether a samurai should stay loyal to his master if the latter is corrupt and murderous. Obviously, the 13 assassins say no, and we root for them. But what are we doing in our actual lives? Are we blindly following an inhumane Military Industrial Complex and/or leader, or is our political reality not so bleak?

In “13 Assassins,” a bandit/hunter named Kiga is found in a cage and freed. Although he is of samurai lineage, he rejects samurai tradition (i.e., he fights with sticks and stones and doesn't appear to be someone willing to commit ritual suicide). He joins the cause as the thirteenth assassin but is flippant about the carnage that ensues. In a way, Kiga represents postmodern culture. Rather by direct or indirect participation, we make up a political entity that fights other political entities, but many of us are often disconnected from the traditions and sacrifices involved (even as voters). But like Kiga, we find meaning in our personal lives. But would we appreciate life more from a different perspective? Lord Naritsugu, the antagonist of the film, provides an answer with his rumination on war: “With death comes gratitude for life.” The veterans I know might agree.

'The Fighter,' My Favorite Film of 2010

When I saw the advertisement for "The Fighter" a few months ago, all I could think was that director David O. Russell ("Three Kings") was wasting his talent on a pretentious and sentimental boxing film for the all-important American dollar.

Instead, what we have here might be the most honest film of 2010. You're going to hear "Here I Go Again" by Whitesnake more than once. You're going to see homely women that must make the elite Hollywood crowd wince. Hell, you're going to see and hear the two boxers and brothers this film is about, Mickey Ward and Dicky Eklund, right as the end credits roll. The hilarity and pain of real life are plastered all over this movie - unlike "Cinderella Man," which makes the Great Depression seem like a fight anyone could have won.

One of the simplest pleasures I've had in a theater is watching Christian Bale play a crack addict. Bale excels in roles in which he can't get outside of himself (e.g., "American Psycho" and "The Machinist"). In this respect, the pathetic energy of Bale's Eklund is natural. But reality catches up with him in the form of Melissa Leo, who plays Eklund's aggressive mother. Russell prevents Bale from chewing scenery by finally getting him to connect with other actors, something that only Steven Spielberg had achieved, and that was more than 20 years ago when Bale was a child in 1987's underrated "Empire of the Sun."

But really, this film has a fuckload of effective performances. I already mentioned Leo, whose acting in the film's domestic disputes brought to mind experiences from my own life (that's powerful shit, my friends). Amy Adams drops her innocence to play one of the strongest women I've seen on the screen in a while, and what's particularly inspiring is that Adams makes it clear that this strength comes from bad decisions her character must live with; there is no fake, inherently badass quality to speak of. The father, played by Jack McGee, is overpowered by the women and boxers around him, but one winds up empathizing with him as a steady figure rather than dismissing him as a pussy.

In the middle of these performances is subtle Mark Wahlberg. Yes, that's right, he's fucking subtle. He's the subtlest boxer I've watched in a film, and you need to see that. For example, after winning his first comeback match, Wahlberg isn't able to enjoy the moment because of the conflicting personalities around him, and you don't get that with a line or even a shrug, just his eyes.

At this point I could be a typical reviewer and point out that this film isn't about the fighting but the characters. But that would be bullshit. The fighting in any boxing movie is very important. Compare "Rocky" and "Raging Bull." Their stories and fights are different. Rocky has long, unrealistic fights to show us how much the underdog can overcome, and Raging Bull has short, nasty fights to accentuate the brutality of the protagonist and sport. "The Fighter" doesn't take either route. The women who parade the signs make the scene as alive as anything, as do the fools in the audience. The fights aren't spectacular or painful to watch; they simply involve people punching each other. This is the most down-to-earth boxing since "Diggstown."

I believe Russell has directed his greatest work, a decidedly humorous masterpiece of sports cinema, and it would be a shame if one avoided it because of the trailer's phony inspirational vibe. I almost did, and I would have missed my favorite film of 2010.

A Review of Christopher Nolan's Filmography or: How I Managed to Offend Some of His Fans

This entry reviews Nolan's filmography. After reading this entry, if you feel like I have said something dreadfully wrong and you are driven to dislike me to any extent, congratulations. You are a Batman Fan. But if you read this entry and disagree or perhaps find yourself nodding in agreement, you are a Normal Human Being. If you think Nolan is a shitty director, you might be a Sophisticated Filmgoer. Pat yourself on the back.

(Note: If one were to say I am biased against Batman and superheroes, I would accuse one of the opposite. There are many, many Batman and superhero stories - whether we’re talking film, television, or comic books - that I prefer over “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.”)

Following (1998)

I had watched every Nolan film with the exception of his debut up until two weeks ago. Perhaps surprisingly, “Following” features some of Nolan’s best direction. Its black-and-white imagery, obscure cast, and unpretentious dialogue give the film a naturalism that I prefer to Nolan’s phony realism in “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” (interestingly, you can see the Batman emblem on a door in “Following”). Initially, I was bugged by the voice-over at the beginning of the film, but this exposition is later tied into a sequence that effectively brings the story to its climax. As in “Memento,” Nolan employs a nontraditional time frame for “Following,” but in contrast to “Memento,” the time frame doesn’t resemble a gimmick. That is, Nolan isn’t simply telling the main story backward.

Memento (2000)

That one can easily follow “Memento” is evidence of Nolan’s talent as a storyteller. As the main story is told in reverse, black-and-white scenes - that move forward as a traditional story would - are interjected to illuminate the mental condition and purpose of Guy Pierce’s protagonist. When the two series of events meet, the viewer may solve the mystery (or maybe not). Much like the characters in “Following,” the players in “Memento” have dubious motives, establishing moral ambiguity as a consistent theme of Nolan’s work. My favorite scene is when Pierce cannot remember whether he is chasing or running away from someone (Nolan’s wit takes a serious blow after “Memento”). What strikes me the most about the protagonist is not his rare disease that prevents new memories but his psychological need for resolution - a need that is common among humankind and the basis for the mystery genre itself.

Insomnia (2002)

“Insomnia” features a recent Al Pacino performance that doesn’t amount to self-parody. Maybe this showcases Nolan’s potential as a filmmaker more than anything. But I digress. Nolan sets up another case of moral ambiguity with the protagonist, but he makes it awfully damn clear that Robin Williams’ character is a shit-eating piece of shit (I stole this clever line from the back of the DVD case). What worries Pacino is that he starts to realize that he might also be a shit-eating piece of shit, and to make matters worse, he’s in fucking Alaska during perpetual daylight. Thus, the man gets no rest. I dig this lesser work from Nolan, but I have to excuse Hillary Swank’s horrible go-getter role and the firefight climax that should have been saved for a dumb action movie. Finally, one should note Nolan adopts the linear narrative starting with this film.

Batman Begins (2005)

And here, Nolan throws moral ambiguity out the window (but thankfully doesn’t abandon it in his career). We can forgive him for this, however, because Liam Neeson plays the villain! Also, Cillian Murphy! (When speaking of The Villain in Batman films, the word “also” is a must.) Anyway, this movie isn’t realistic (any scene involving the redneck toy Tumbler is incredibly fucking stupid, for example), but Nolan’s main concern is showing us how Batman began, thereby making him less myth and more man (or rather, more Christian Bale-ish). I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is how retarded some of the dialogue is: “It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.” Well, Jeezus Christus, just slap me with your balls while you’re at it. Lastly, Rachel Dawes (played by Katie Holmes) gives Nolan a two-movie streak of shitty female characters, the director seemingly forgetting what he accomplished with “Following” and “Memento.”

The Prestige (2006)

Just as one can see Nolan gradually define morality with “Insomnia” and “Batman Begins,” one can see him return to the morally gray territory of “Following” and “Memento” in “The Prestige.” Neither magician in this film would be allowed in the church choir, which makes the conflict all the more decadent (and enjoyable). Nolan brilliantly creates a parallel to this conflict with a Thomas Edison vs. Nikola Tesla subplot (and getting David Bowie to play Tesla is terrific casting), granting the film an evident, but secondary, science fiction element. I would mark “The Prestige” as Nolan’s first step toward science fiction, even though others give that distinction to “Memento.” One should keep in mind that “Memento,” unlike the subplot in “The Prestige,” is primarily concerned with answers, not the backbone of quality science fiction: questions. The only major problem with “The Prestige” is the ending, a parlor trick (oh! he has a twin!) that cheapens the aforementioned conflict.

The Dark Knight (2008)

First, let me assure everyone of one thing: I do not consider “The Dark Knight” Nolan’s weakest film because it is his most successful film. I believe “The Godfather,” “Jaws,” and “Blazing Saddles” are three of the greatest films in history and the best work from their respective directors. Furthermore, in case anyone still has questions on the matter, I was blown away by “The Dark Knight” after I saw it in a theater. However, I tailored my opinion after repeated viewings and more thought.

“The Dark Knight” is Nolan’s weakest film because it is, quite frankly, full of shit (i.e., it does not accomplish what it thinks it does). Nolan pretends this film is more believable than other Batman vs. Joker stories, but it isn’t. The Joker is still able to pull off impossible scheme after impossible scheme, and Batman is still the only one who can stop him. Do I have a problem with either of these things by themselves? Of course not. However, Nolan’s pretense on the matter is absurd. And if only that were the single major flaw of the film.

Replacing Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal doesn’t change the fact that Rachel Dawes is a boring character who serves as little more than a piece of meat for the predominantly male cast.

Remember the silly line I quoted from “Batman Begins”? “The Dark Knight” is replete with this obvious Flashcard Writing. The worst offense is Commissioner Gordon’s monologue explaining the entire fucking movie, interpretative thought be damned.

Some people say moral ambiguity is at play in “The Dark Knight,” and Nolan undoubtedly shares this view, but I don’t buy it. The film is no more morally ambiguous than Burton’s two Batman films, in which the protagonist breaks the law however he sees fit to fight criminals. In fact, I would argue that Burton’s first film has more moral ambiguity insofar as Batman is directly responsible for creating the Joker via dropping Jack Napier into a chemical vat. In “The Dark Knight,” the Joker is not the effect of Batman’s existence (unless you want to argue that Nolan’s Joker wasn’t abused as a child). As Alfred Pennyworth says, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” Yeah, that’s another Glaring Flashcard for the stupid audience (which includes me and you, by the way), but it illustrates that Batman has a noble purpose and that the Joker is wrong.

“The Dark Knight” is not a bad movie, and it features one of the best performances of the 2000s (I don’t even have to say the actor’s name), but it is not a masterpiece. Also, watch “Batman: The Brave and the Bold.” OK, I’m done.

Inception (2010)

“Inception” is Nolan’s first full-fledged attempt at science fiction, and while I wouldn’t call it a knockout punch (come to think of it, I wouldn’t call any movie a knockout punch), it is a thinking person’s theme park ride. Moral ambiguity is back again. The idea of sneaking around in someone’s dream is fucked up, no matter the purpose. As far as the time frame is concerned, Nolan’s narrative is still linear, but the dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream structure is far from a standard experience. You won’t know what I’m talking about until you see it, but when the van finally hits the water, the effect is orgasmic. (So be careful whom you sit by.) Alright, alright, so most of the characters in this film are about as flimsy as paper, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s coolness makes up for that shortcoming. Now, about the ending: it’s not complicated, and there’s no reason for Multiple Interpretations. Nolan is simply pointing out that reality and dreams have meaningful interplay, a theme explored previously by the late Satoshi Kon’s “Paprika.” In other words, it doesn’t matter whether the last scene is a dream or not. The conflict has been resolved in the protagonist’s mind.