Memento (2000)

We're used to movies that follow a simple and linear plot structure because they are easier for the casual moviegoer to follow along. But there are movies that are so complex in their non-linear narrative structure that it's up to us to interpret the events of the movie and how we put the pieces together for ourselves. Christopher Nolan's Memento is a great example of a non-linear film.

The movie follows the adventures of Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), an insurance investigator whose wife has been murdered and develops a serious case of short-term memory loss after the attack. After the police refused to help him, it's now up to Leonard to find the man who is responsible for his wife's death and he meets strange and interesting characters along the way.

To keep in line with Leonard's condition, Christopher Nolan writes his screenplay out of order and mixes up the chronology so the audience can pay attention to important plot details, get invested in the mystery, and mix the pieces of the puzzle on their own. If the movie were written in a linear fashion it would get monotonous and there would be no suspense.

In contrast to the non-linear narrative, Nolan also shot the film in color with black and white segments. The color sequences are told in reverse order of the plot while the black and white sequences are in chronological order. The black and white sequences are important to the story because we were given important plot details indicated on the Polariod photographs and the tattoos and Leonard's body before the film goes back into color.

What also distinguishes Memento from the other linear stories is the level of character depth. Most movies tend to have flawed people learning to redeem themselves and change the course of their own lives. With the case of Memento, it's grounded in reality and the characters are manipulative towards each other. They always lie, cheat, abuse, and murder. It goes to show the audience that people like these characters do exist and there's very little they can do to redeem themselves and develop as people.

This adherence to a more realistic depiction leaves us a little unsure of our typical good and evil archetypes. While Leonard is certainly the protagonist of the film, it's ambiguous as to whether or not we should consider him a hero or a villain. Just as in real life, where heroes and villains are defined by perspective than anything tangible, we're left unsure as to whether or not Leonard is truly justified.

Although the main essential elements are present in both the film and short story, the short story is radically different than the film. In the short story, the main character's name is Earl, not Leonard. In the short story, Earl is convinced by his own notes, escapes from the mental institution, and finds his wife's murderer. The film's ambiguous approach to storytelling is much better than the short story.

All the performances are first rate. Guy Pearce is perfectly suited for the role of Leonard. Joe Pantoliano is terrifying as the scheming undercover cop who helps Leonard into solving the murder. And Carrie-Anne Moss is electrifying as the woman Leonard is seeing during the course of the mystery.

Memento might be difficult film to follow and understand but it gets more interesting as the plot goes along and the more we see the film often, the more we can be able to understand it after repeated viewing.

RATING 4/4

No Country for Old Men (2007) (Spoiler Warning)

Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel No Country for Old Men deals with themes involving fate, doing what you feel is right, greed, and violent consequences by showing them to us rather then telling us how to feel about them. The novel shows parallels between man and nature, often foreshadowing the natural course of things without needless exposition as to what that truly means. We, as a reader, are left to describe that ourselves.

The Coen Brothers captured these themes with the same kind of ambiguity while also staying true to the source material. The opening landscape shot shows us desolation while Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) questions himself through narration on whether or not he did the right thing. The lack of music adds realism and adds to the theme of desolation very well. The ice cold lighting at some of the night time scenes fit Anton Chigurh's (Javier Bardem) personality perfectly and the light blue lighting at the motel shows us the deep trouble Llwellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is about to get from Chigurh. And the sunny Texas landscape and the harsh yellow lighting at night remind us of hellfire.

Both the book and the movie left important questions we're asking open for interpretation so we can figure it out ourselves. For example, why did Llwellyn take the drug money? In both the book and the movie Llwellyn is shown to have slight reservations about taking the money, hinting at the fact that he knows the stakes of the game he's about to be playing. He does it anyway. We can venture to guess why without being told. His current conditions, living in a trailer park, not seeing much of a future for himself, providing for his young wife. All of these are obvious factors in his decision making, while simultaneously crafting a real, breathing character.

The Coen Brothers also used a lot of symbolism in this film, such as silhouetted reflections on an old TV set. The first reflection shows us Anton Chigurh, which gives us the impression that he's more than a murderous psychopath. The second reflection shows us Sheriff Bell, who later questions whether he did the right thing or not. Both reflections show us different characters in both men. Chigurh wears his normal clothes while Sheriff Bell is in uniform, showing us that Bell goes by the law and Chigurh makes his own rules yet both characters are doing what they think is right. There is also something to seeing both of these characters in the same setting at slightly different times. Nothing is different except the man sitting there. It allows the audience to focus on the extreme differences in the characters themselves. 

Chigurh is an interesting character both in the movie and the book. He's very creative, he makes his own rules, and he views his victims like cattle. This gives us the impression that he might be The Grim Reaper, more a specter than a man. Take a look at his famous coin toss for example. If the victim guesses heads or tails correctly, his or her life would be spared. If he or she loses the toss, the victim would parish. To Chigurh, this dichotomy is fate. He is not one choosing what happens, he is merely enacting what he views as destiny. This very tense scene is unsettling and allows us a clear view into the way Chigurh's mind works.

Through The Coen Brothers' commitment to ambiguity and faithfulness to the original text, we are given a movie that is able to translate deep themes from a book to the silver screen. It is not often that we, as an audience, are given films that are as rich, or as textured as the work they were able to put together.

RATING: 4/4

Fight Club (1999) (Spoiler Warning)

Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club and it's film adaptation from David Fincher shows us the horrors of masculinity and how it can lead to violent activities. We, as a society, have been raised in a stereotypical masculine culture, the reflection of which can be seen in action movie stars, athletes, or superheros. But the characters Fight Club takes masculinity to the extreme with their foul language, their massive and brutal battles with each other, and their war against a capitalistic American society.

Common masculine stereotypes can be attributed to a short temper, the use of violence to solve disputes, fights in public places such as bars, and rough language. But Fight Club doesn't glorify and romanticize masculinity.

The Narrator (Edward Norton) expresses complete cowardice earlier in the story. He works at a boring job, which often affects his insomnia very badly, and he doesn't stand up to his boss (Zach Grenier). He doesn't really become a stereotype of masculinity until Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) enters his life and they decide to run a business in which oppressed men learn how to be a man by fighting each other. David Fincher shoots the fight sequences in dark areas with bright yellow lights to give the audience the feeling that the characters are like savages from hell, so while the movie does embrace violence, it does show the negativity that can come from it.

Fight Club also focuses heavily on the idea of extremism. Nietzsche once stated that the more civilized our society becomes, the weaker each individual becomes in terms of their willingness to endure physical consequences. The formation of the Fight Club was originally cathartic, intended to open the participants to a truer connection to reality. This opening, however, allowed for the extreme ideals of its creator to easily be adopted by those following him. Just as in a terrorist organization, where extreme rhetoric is used to conform the followers, Tyler Durden uses the rhetoric of Fight Club to align his followers with his end goal.

In the context of the story, terrorism is being used against our capitalist society. As the Fight Club progresses, Tyler Durden begins to form a group called Project Mayhem, which declares war on capitalism. They overfeed doves so they can defecate on brand new cars, they cause property damage such as wrecking cars, and blowing up electronic stores, and they beat up complete strangers while they are at work. But the terrorism isn't glamorized. Fincher still uses unsavory color palettes for sequences of Project Mayhem at work.

The true conclusion of both the book and film should be clear. Our Narrator eventually realizes that he himself is Tyler Durden. The parts of him that had felt quelled by the advancement of civilization in the worst possible ways. These manifestations led him down a dark path believing that your ability to damage and destroy defined your true effect on the world. This parallels with our contemporary traits of masculinity, that our ability to effect charge and have a true position is proportionate to our strength. It also parallels with groups in the real world who, when feeling oppressed, resort to violence (or terrorism) to achieve their goals. There's something intrinsically ironic, however, that in Fincher's film the majority of people in Project Mayhem are white American males, a group who in no way experiences actual oppression. It's as if it was purposely to show purposelessness of their actions.

Once our Narrator realizes the consequences of the actions in the book and film, he sets out to stop them. We, as an audience, are supposed to take the position of the Narrator. We are shown the lure of violence, of resorting to our basest instinct when we begin to feel lost in the world. But we are brought to the conclusion that these actions are not the best course to take, they merely result in more pain and destruction. Fight Club holds a mirror up to our faces and asks if what we actually like to see.

RATING: 4/4