Oppenheimer (2023)

 "You are an American Prometheus."

This is, of course, a superb film. I was expecting it to be exactly that, given its reputation, its cast and the fact that it's a Christopher Nolan film. It's a triumph. Yet, in many ways, it's also not really what one might expect.

This is, I suppose, broadly comparable to Lawrence of Arabia. It's a three hour epic (I'm not one for long films, but both films just fly by) based on the biography of one man in the context of his time, with lots of big themes to chew on. 

And this... isn't really the sort of film that Christopher Nolan has ever made before. Oh, there's a certain non-linear narrative structure ("fission" and "fusion"), but there's none of the clever structural trickery of a Tenet or an Inception. Instead, Nolan's directorial flair is used to illustrate theme and character, often showing us Oppenheimer's own imaginings of a nuclear blast.

The themes are huge. This American Prometheus has unleashed the power of the atom, with all that implies for the safety of the world. We also deal with the unfortunate consequences of having been in any way Communism-adjacent in one's past, and meet so many huge figures of the twentieth century during the course of the film. Yet the film, in its very structure based on two enquiries, one in the colourful past and the other in the monochrome "present" of 1959, focuses on both Oppenheimer himself and the mercurial Lewis Strauss, with both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr giving extraordinary performances, both of them literally Oscar-winning.

Deeply clever. A massive blockbuster. Really cleaned up at the Oscars. Simultaneously popular and acclaimed, something that just doesn't happen in these post-COVID times where, let's face it, cinema as an institution seems to be in slow but real decline. But, while films like this remain possible, perhaps there's some degree of hope.

Tenet (2020)

 "We are being attacked from the future."

This is one of those Christopher Nolan films that are a massive puzzle box, like Inception and The Prestige, if not quite as good as those two. How much you enjoy these types of film depends on whetheryou like a film to be a puzzle box, in this case a big timey-wimey palindrome thingy. 

Confession time: yes, I understood the broad nature of the plot, but I immediately went on to watch a YouTube video to so I understood it... well, "fully" is an awfully strong word. Again, there will be those who, understandably,don't fancy the idea of a fil that takes effort, and even multiple viewings,to work out what's going on,especially if said film happens to be two and a half hours long.

It's worty it, though. This film is extraordinary, and it's a shame how a certain spiky virus sort of sabotaged it at the box office, although admittedly that's hardly the worst of the many sins of said virus.

The central concept is fantastic- inversion of entropy, meaning that an object or person can be "inverted", moving backwards through time instead of forwards. Hence, there's a lot of time travel in this film, but you have to live through events in real time, whether forwards or backwards. There are great concepts arising from this, such as the "temporal pincer movement" and the rather clever little time paradoxes around the characters, and particularly around the true nature of John David Washington's Protagonist. The fact he's known only as that is a clue.

It's not all that, of course. There's humour. There's Kenneth Branagh being superb as an evil (is there any other kind?) Russian oligarch. There's a chilling yet tasteful exploration of domestic abuse. There's a delightful cameo from old Michael Caine. This film is a joy.

The Prestige (2006)

"You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled."

I've seen this film before, a few years before this blog was ever envisioned. I haven't read the original novel be Christopher Priest, but I understand there are a few differences; I won't look them up, as I have a vague intention to read the novel someday- although the ever-moving onset of middle age is making me aware that I have a finite number of decades left in order to consume all the culture I would like to consume.

I don't intend to simply rercount the intricate and clever plot, but, obviously, SPOILERS.

This filom, as one would expect from Christopher Nolan, is supremely entertaining and bloody clever. Let's get the evaluation out of the way now: it's superb. The whole plot is constructed and layered like a magic trick, ending with not one but two prestiges: the revelation that Borden is in fact two twin brothers, and that Angier goes to such lengths for revenge on Borden, potentially dying every night: the latter of these is positively existential. Yet the final prestige is that yes, Borden is judicially murdered, but his daughter still has her father. For Borden, there is hope. For spoilt rich boy Angier, there is only empty death.

It's even cleverer than it seems, with the structure of the whole thing and the foreshadowing- early on there is a trick with a bird being made to disappear, and the small boy realises that the way it's done is for one brother to die and be replaced by the other. Quite.

It's an entertaining film behind the cleverness, with a first rate main cast and a delightful supporting role from David Bowie himself. It is, naturally, exquisitely shot and written. The score by Thom Yorke is exquisite. And the film has understated but very real heart too. A triumph.

Inception (2010)

 "The smallest seed of an idea can grow. It can grow to define or destroy you."

I can't believe it's taken me until 2023 to watch this uniquely brilliant film. Better late than never, right?

As you can imagine, this Christopher Nolan masterpiece (he has more than one of those, of course) has quite blown me away. It's not the conceit of entering people's dreams, or of dreams within me: that was spoiled for me by the episode of Rick and Morty that was riffing on Inception. Nor, really, is it the intricacies of the plot, brilliant though that is. 

No: it's the very human tragic romance between Cobb and Mal. My mind was blown by the revelation that, after exploring dreams within dreams and spending a subjective fifty years in a self-constructed dream paradise, Mal became convinced that it was the dream world that was the real one... so she demapped herself, as David Foster Wallace would put it, ensuring that Cobb would be framed for her death so he would be motivated to follow her into what she sincerely believed would be blissful, loving happiness. She died pointlessly, and made her husband's life a living hell with his children forever denied to him... out of love.

And then, later, we have bombshell number two. Yes, the main plot concerns a kind of reverse heist trying to plant an idea, an "inception" in the mind of a corporate heir in order to enrich Cobb's client so his life can be unruined, etc, blah blah. And that's all fascinating. But far more mind-blowing is the realisation that it was Cobb who planted the idea of the world not being real in his wife's mind so they could leave their dream world in the first place, by being run over by a train together. And the dialogue exactly parallels that in bombshell number one. It's all quite existentially jaw-dropping.

The ending, with the top still spinning, is nicely ambiguous: can Cobb finally have happiness with his children or is he still dreamimg? I would suggest that the answer to this question lies not in the spinning top, which may or may not fall, but in the fact that the two children have not seemingly aged since Cobb last saw them.

The impressions left in my mind, though, are certainly of admiration at the ideas and the plot, but of deep engagement with the very human emotions at the heart of this film. Cobb and Mal are both decent people, and a genuinely loving couple- indeed, no one in the film can be said to be "bad", just fundamentally decent people trying to do the right thing and sometimes making very human errors. That's quite profound. And both hopeful and horrifying in equal measure.

Dunkirk (2017)

 "He's shell-shocked, George. He's not himself. He might never be himself again."

Obviously, this is no typical war film: it's Christopher Nolan, after all. We don't even see any Germans, just the effects of their bullets, bombs and especially planes. There isn't even a central character as such, just an ensemble cast whom we follow throughout. Then there's the famously non-linear narrative structure- the events at the beach taking one week; the events at sea taking one day; and the events in the air taking one day. Yet this is over-hyped, I think: the film is perfectly easy to follow, and the film is about much bigger things than its own structure.

This film  is an extraordinary achievement. There's plenty of heroism on display, but also shell-shock, fear and paranoia- the scene in which the British soldiers in a sinking boat threaten to throw overboard first a Frenchman and then a man from another regiment is deeply disturbing. But this is reality. It is not a gung-ho adventure story. That would not be Dunkirk. Yet we see the heroism of Collins and Farrier in the air, and the heroism of Mr Dawson, Peter  and George, civilians who risk everything- with seventeen year old George losing his life... at the hands of a panicking, shell-shocked British officer.

The cast- Tom Hardy perhaps excepted- is composed of character actors rather than stars, reinforcing that this is not a stirring action film but an honest attempt to depict what the evacuatrion would have felt like. Both the direction and the soundtrack are utterly peerless throughout, evoking the feel of besiegement and desperation. And the performance of Mark Rylance, in particular, is utterly sublime.

There is hope at the end, yes. The evacuation is a success against the odds. It's a nice choice to have Churchill's famed words be read from a newspaper by a young soldier. Yet we're left in no doubt that the road ahead is long and hard. Wars are not won by evacuations. Yet nor are they won without an army. Mere survival is not victory. But it does, of course, keep the hope of victory alive.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

 "No guns. No killing."

"Where's the fun in that?"

I've been putting off this film for years. Oh, its predecessor was a good action film, and was centred around a sublime performance by the late Heath Ledger. But it wasn't a good Batman film. I was expecting the same of this.

I was wrong. This is both a brilliant action film- the set pieces are universally sublime- and an equally brilliant Batman film. The typically wooden performance of Christian Bake matters not: the characterisation of Bruce Wayne, eight years after Batman has retired and Rachel has died, is at the centre of everything. He slowly regains hope, is beaten away from it, and symbolically rises from mpossible odds. It's all sublime.

I know not of Bane from the comics. He was after my time. Yet Tom Hardy, despite some accent slippage, is excellent as the muscular, pseudo-intellectual ewpitome of the sort of characters that could only have existed in the '90s.

A more pleasing character is an unusually engaging Catwoman: Anne Hathaway is both charismatic and brilliant, with so many little nuances to her performance. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is superb as a young, orphan cop who identifies with Bruce becausevof how he lost a parent. Morgan Freeman, as Lucius Fox, commentts wryly on the corporate side. Alred, meanwhile, has lost his stiff upper lip. Yet, if he's played by the extraordinary Michael Caine, who cares?

Yes, everybody bloody knows Bruce is the Batman. But I found this film to be excellent. Both the direction and the performances were sublime .

The Dark Knight (2008)

"Let me get this straight, you think that your client, one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante, who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands, and your plan is to blackmail this person?"

I may have changed my mind about this film a bit. I first saw it about eight years ago (in Los Angeles!) and my impressions were that it worked well as a film but not so well as a part of the Batman myth is, being more interested in pursuing the then-contemporary themes of terrorism, civil liberties (which are, don't get me wrong, important) and surveillance, hence the rather. crowbarred-in scene with Batman and Lucius Fox monitoring the people of Gotham on a bunch of monitors.

That's still, I think, a concern. But eight years on it seems not to loom so large, and the film seems a much better experience. Heath Ledger is a magnificent Joker, intelligent in his madness and articulate in his pursuit of chaos. It's perhaps a very idiosyncratic take on the character, but just about close enough to the original. Again it's a complex plot, weaving the tragedy of Harvey Dent into a tale of how the Joker grows from minor sideshow beside the important work of going after the mob to existential threat to Gotham itself. All this and we find time for a trip to Hong Kong just to find a mob boss. A lot gets packed into these Christopher Nolan Batman films.

It's odd to see Maggie Gyllenhaal as the recast Rachel, but she does a splendid job. Christian Bale is adequate as always and Gary Oldman was still born to play Jim Gordon. Aaron Eckhart and Michael Caine are superb but, yeah, the film belongs to Ledger. It would even if he hadn't died so shortly afterwards. He's the James Dean of our generation, but it would be much better if instead of that he was still around.

I enjoyed the film this time around, and felt as though it respected the characters rather better than I previously thought. Behind all the spectacle there's some real depth to a film that really seems to have divided the fan from the general viewer..

Batman Begins (2005)

"What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Yes, it's odd to see Ra's al-Ghul used in this way, conflated with Henri Ducard from the Blind Justice arc back in '89 and bearing absolutely no relation to the character we know and love to the point that he doesn't even seem to be an Arab; Ken Watanabe's decoy character seems to hail from much farther east. Still, there are hints as to the Lazarus Pit, perhaps. And, more to the point, this is a brilliant film tacking Batman's origins and a triumph for both the fan and the general audience.

Essentially this is because of both David Goyer's perfectly judged script and the always impressive direction of Christopher Nolan; Christian Bale is a perfectly good Batman, although no more than that, and the film is very well cast indeed, with Michael Caine being a particular master stroke. Still, were I an American I'd probably raise an eyebrow at the suspiciously high number of Brits in this film based on an iconic American character and directed by a Brit; I'm surprised this isn't more often commented on. It would be a reasonable objection in my British eyes. Still, Gary Oldman is the perfect Jim Gordon.

I can't fault the film though. Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow is chilling and brilliant, with that mask and some splendidly trippy direction making a hugely effective villain. And the time and thought given to Batman's origins is clear; it is both faithful and innovative, with a focus on Bruce's relationship with his philanthropist father and his childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes, a new character. This, as well as the more jovially sarcastic edge to Alfred, works very well indeed. The theme of fear is developed throughout, with the figures of Ra's, the Scarecrow and Batman reflecting different uses of it, for good or ill. And I like the way Batman's moral scruples against killing are contrasted against the gang 'em flog 'em stupidity of Ra's and his gang, the Daily Express of terrorist organisations.

Yes, there's also a fair bit from Batman: Year One, but that's no bad thing; it's nice to see Colin McFarlane as Commissioner Loeb. And, on the subject of actors, we even get an appearance by the great Shane Rimmer! This is a long film, yes, but a dense one, with a lot going on from the evolving relationship between Bruce and Rachel to Bruce's takeover of Wayne Enterprises. It's one of the finest superhero film ever and almost (but not quite) makes me rethink my opinion that superhero films should eschew origin stories.

Memento (2000)

"I have to believe in a world outside my own mind."

This film still blew me away sixteen years later. The concept- the story of an amnesiac told in reverse- is an ingenious use of both form and content and a story that can only be told through the medium of cinema. The twist is staggering. Christopher Nolan well and truly announced his arrival with this superb piece of cinema.

Credit also goes to Guy Pearce, given the heavy burden of carrying the entire film, all of which is told from his perspective. The film works because of the ingenious script, however and, while I'm not going to simply recite the plot.. SPOILERS!

The film is gripping, a very clever puzzle that it's fun to see unfolding, but it's also tragic. Leonard's "system", as we see, simply doesn't work, and he is constantly being cruelly manipulated by the likes of Natalie (particularly nasty) and Eddie. But, worst of all, as we see the twist, we learn that he's manipulating himself to give himself a continuing mission. He is simultaneously the villain and one of his own victims.

He's a truly tragic figure, though, a Sisyphus sentenced to never-ending labours by himself. This is a mind-blowing film on many levels and one of the finest I have ever seen.