The Films of Christopher Nolan: The Dark Knight

This film will also be a part of a larger post about Nolan’s entire Dark Knight Trilogy.

INTRODUCTION

The sixth film in my continued analysis of The Films of Christopher Nolan is the game changing, genre bending The Dark Knight.  There is a lot that has been said about this film over the years; praise has been (rightfully) lauded on the film, commenting on its contribution to the craft of filmmaking: direction, cinematography and acting; as well as several philosophical interpretations. Yet, in this extensive analysis and dissection of Nolan’s second chapter in his Batman saga, I have yet to see a uniquely sociological take on the film; which I will provide in this review.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

           

“I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”- The Joker

            2008 was a big year for the superhero film genre. It is easy to say that The Dark Knight was easily the most anticipated film of 2008 (especially with its Joker-Dent themed viral marketing campaign that referenced classic Batman storylines) However, that same year, in addition to The Dark Knight we also got the opening volleys of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and the much underrated sequel Hellboy II: The Golden Army.  With this slate of films we could already get a sense of the winds of change were blowing and even before its release The Dark Knight was understood as something special…and then Heath Ledger died.

            Ledger’s sudden death in January of 2008 from a combination of prescription and over the counter medication resulting in cardiac arrest, not only put even more attention on The Dark Knight (rumors began to fly about how the role of The Joker had possibly contributed to his demise) but put the film’s status and potential future into question.  Fans (myself included), in a moment of pure selfishness and disrespect for life, were overwhelming concerned about whether the film was finished, or if its release would be halted.  Once the news of Ledger’s completion of the film and being presented in its entirety was made public, the fans (again myself included) could sit back and revel in our moment of awfulness.

Regardless of how bad I feel for my contribution to the dehumanizing fanaticism that occurred, it is important to look at how Ledger’s death impacted the film. Making over a billion dollars in worldwide box office receipts, it is clear that more than just fans saw this film.  To use anecdotal evidence, when I saw the film in IMAX for the first time, the line to get in was down the street and around the corner; full of both the hardcore cosplaying fan that camped out the night before, AND groups of affluent white females (with their respective male arm candy) dressed up as if they were going to a club. It was clear, through the observational data I collected, that they had no interest in Batman or the Superhero genre at all. This was the first time I entertained the notion that part of The Dark Knight’s popularity (and subsequent success) is due, in part, to Ledger’s death and the aforementioned rumors. Thus, the film’s buzz can be attributed, in some way to people’s morbid curiosity.

 It is my opinion that The Dark Knight would not be so popular with the mainstream, reaching new benchmark levels of success, if Ledger survived. Even his posthumous Oscar for the role seemed to be a legacy gift, for all of the stellar looked over roles he had in the past (e.g. Brokeback Mountain) his death robbing the film industry of his future greatness. This becomes readily apparent when Oscar winner data shows that no one before, or since, has won an Oscar for her/his role in a superhero film. Even director Christopher Nolan and the film itself was snubbed for best director and best picture (a huge insult). It is obvious that the decision by the academy to award the best supporting actor Oscar, for Ledger’s performance was not about celebrating the film, but celebrating him.

PLOT

“And Here. We. Go.”- The Joker

The Dark Knight picks up approximately nine months after the end of Batman Begins. Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) are doing their best to wipe out organized crime and corruption in Gotham.  With the help of the enthusiastic new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), they are successful in cutting off the source of the mob’s money. Having been dealt a crippling blow, the Mob enlists the help of a criminal known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger) to target Batman, Gordon, and Dent, in hopes of getting their money back.  In the ensuing chaos that is wrought by the Joker, who seemingly has no clear motive, Batman, Gordon and Dent try to maintain order by a razor’s edge. Yet, as The Joker increases the pressure, putting each man in moral and ethical dilemmas; Dent, Gordon and Batman are left to sacrifice their morality and decency in order to give Gotham the order and peace they hope for.

SOCIAL ANALYSIS

As I have mention, there is a lot that has already been said about this film.  My contribution through this section will be one that is increasingly sociological.  I will start out with particular general themes that have been confirmed by Team Nolan through interviews and news articles. Then, I will slowly transition into looking at the characters and their motivations in the film using the critical eye of the Sociological perspective.

Themes

            The film has many different themes some of which are blatant, subtle and misguided.

“I’m an agent of Chaos.”- The Joker

Chaos/Escalation

At the end of Batman Begins Gordon, prophetically predicts that Batman’s presence will only make things worse for Gotham (while describing The Joker’s first crime in the city) before they can get better.  This directly insinuates that Batman, is himself a form of escalation that is then met and equalized by The Joker in The Dark Knight.

It is clear in terms of story structure that since Bruce Wayne pledged himself and set out on his mission throughout Batman Begins that this second story, is how those beliefs and that mission would be tested. It stands reason that since Batman is an embodiment of “chaotic good” really only having one rule (which is blatantly stated more than once in the film) that the escalation of that would be “Chaotic evil” represented by The Joker. All of Batman’s tactics of violence and intimidation do nothing to sway The Joker. In fact, it seems that the more out of control and enraged Batman becomes the more The Joker loves it, revels in it. This is no more clearly shown than in the now infamous Interrogation scene: This scene illustrates the philosophical differences of Batman and the Joker and it is the point where Batman realizes just what he is actually up against. You can see the realization wash over his face as The Joker speaks.

“…Should we give in to this Terrorist’s demands?”-  Harvey Dent

Terrorism and Surveillance    

            Once the film was released there were obvious parallels to “The War on Terror” and The Patriot Act that both the public and critics made.  Some political conservatives even praised the film and Batman for being an allegory for the actions of George W. Bush and his administration (even going so far as to say Batman was Bush).  Team Nolan never expressively said the film was representing anything more than an exercise in great filmmaking. However, one must understand that all pieces of popular culture (especially film) are created within a particular social and historical context, which inevitably bleeds into and affects the way in which the movie is experienced and perceived resulting in these thematic parallels.

            “I realize now what I would have to become to stop men like him.” - Bruce Wayne

The Joker is clearly a terrorist, though I wonder if it would have been so readily used in reviews of the film outside of the historical and political climate.  It is his use of nontraditional homemade explosives unclear demands that adds to the comparison with more recent acts of terrorism and the current racialized group that we have labeled Terrorists.

            Batman’s use of sonar cell phone technology as a way to track The Joker towards the end of the film is often citied to be analogous of “The Patriot Act” in fact, even promoting its use. Many conservative commentators have praised Batman’s use of the technology to catch The Joker. In their mind, it is a clear endorsement of non-court ordered surveillance; thereby justifying real life pieces of legislation like “The Patriot Act”. The idea is that abusing the civil liberties of the people of Gotham it is for the greater good.  Those conservatives that have this particular point of view fail to acknowledge Lucius Fox’s (Morgan Freeman) ultimatum denouncing such actions. They also fail to understand the significance of the machine’s destruction at the end of the film.

                        “It’s all part of the plan.” - The Joker

            Sociologically, speaking when I approach the idea of surveillance I always go back to two particular authors Max Weber and Michel Foucault and their respective ideas of Bureaucracy and the penopticon.  Max Weber (with a little help from George Ritzer years later) maps out the inherent problem with a capitalistic bureaucratic structure: it is a dehumanizing, objectifying, standardizing, rational “iron cage” that limits human dynamic diversity.  For Weber, surveillance is a part of this “iron cage” which forces people into conformity, a conformity with the system. In the Foucaudian sense, surveillance, or its implication, is the primary form of social control within social structures and institutions.  If the populace, in their “Iron cage” of rationality also assume that they are constantly being watched (regardless of whether or not they actual are) they are more likely to police themselves and conform to a particular social order. Unfortunately, these ideas about surveillance are not reinforced by the film.

“They’re only as good as the world allows them to be.”- The Joker

            Debate on Human Nature

            The primary conflict between Batman and the Joker is an ideological one.  This has been true in the comics as it is here in this film.  The ideological conflict centers on how each of them understands and perceives humanity.  Batman is an essentialist who believes in the good of all people. The Joker understands (like many sociologists) that our actions behaviors and identities are dependent upon a particular social and historical context.  Given the right social trigger, The Joker understands that ANYONE can become like him.  In fact, that is what he is trying to prove; that given the right social conditions, humans are capable of anything. To that end The Joker would be a social constructionist. The Joker’s ultimate success can be measured through his manipulation and turn of Harvey Dent into Two-Face, and the vote of the people of Gotham clearly voting for murder on the ferries. 

            In this scene The Joker starts to sway Dent by having him realize the power of social conformity on mass society.  Invoking a Weberian argument about the power of routines and the social control of organizational systems (though he uses the term “plans”) The Joker succinctly and astutely makes Dent aware of the Weberian “iron cage” the world is trapped in. Because the system doesn’t change Dent’s morality then shifts to chance; the only thing that he believes is fair in a hyper-rational system that Weber (and the Joker) lay out.

            In this scene, The Joker attempts to recreate a social experiment. The Joker has a lot of historical evidence to support his claim that the people of Gotham will blow up the other ferry.  Many people under totalitarian regimes (Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.) in history have been forced to kill others.  Also, the way that the Joker sets up this experiment, there is some similarities to the famous Stanley Milgram experiment on obedience.  As a collective, the people of Gotham all decide to detonate the other ferry, proving Joker’s point.  It is only when that task is given to one person that hesitation sets in.  This is because, with only one person making a decision (who is not an authority) there is a lack of a diffusion of responsibility.  For the purposes of the film, The Joker has to believe that he’s lost in order for him to be stopped, otherwise this disagreement between Batman and The Joker would go on forever.  This is why he is not privy to the decision to blow up the ferry, only the end result and why Batman has to take the fall for Harvey’s murders at the end.

 It should not be misinterpreted that the Joker’s point of view is validated by these actions at the end of the film and that he proves through his own evidence and actions in the film that reality is a social construction and that people are a blank canvas, ultimately becoming a reflection of the social cultural rules they have adopted which can alter based upon their own social, historical and political context, choices and experiences.

Characters

The characters in a Christopher Nolan film are often anthropomorphized embodiments of social and philosophical principles; and to that end it serves as the character’s motivation and end goal(s). The main characters in The Dark Knight are no exception. Each character is the personification of particular interpretations of society and the general social world that their physical altercations in the film are underlined by this philosophical conflict.

“One man, or the entire mob? He can wait.”- Batman

Bruce Wayne/Batman

When we are reintroduced to Batman/Bruce Wayne in this film we find him maintaining his mission to relieve Gotham of corruption in order to show its people that there is hope.  This is Batman in his prime. We see him at his best.  The best in terms of physical combat, detective skills, will, determination and dedication.  However, he is looking to Harvey Dent as his way out.  He bets on Harvey to be “The White Knight” to be able to clean up the streets from the spotlight and not from the shadows. He becomes so convinced of this that he is blinded to the dangers around him and the changing nature of his relationship with Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

            Bruce Wayne seeing his parents murdered put him in a state of arrested development. Since he does not have a lot of experiences with adult relationships (and is driven by his mission) he seems to have a child-like understanding of love. He believes that since Rachel (at the end of Batman Begins) said that when Gotham no longer needed Batman they would be together that it was going to happen. This naïve notion motivates him to go looking for a successor (of sorts) in Harvey Dent. Even though Rachel specifically tells him not to pin all his hopes to her or any one person.

            Learning from Ra’s al Gul that criminals aren’t complex (“[You] just need to figure out what [they] want.”) Bruce Wayne’s pride and desire to move on with his life blinded him to the real threat of The Joker, despite repeated warnings by Alfred. It is only after the interrogation scene where he listens, really listens to The Joker for the first time that he realizes just how wrong he was.

            “It’s not that simple. With The Joker, it never is.” – Batman  

            Batman not only embodies the characteristic of essentialism, but he also the personification of will and determination.  In Batman Begins he is willing to sully his family’s good name in order to save the people of Gotham. In The Dark Knight he is willing to do the same for “The Batman” It is his true belief in the people of Gotham that allows him to keep moving forward. He has the will and determination to sacrifice himself to allow Gotham to have some semblance of peace. “To have their faith rewarded” as it were.  It would have been interesting to see how Bruce would've reacted to the Gothamites decision to blow up the ferry. Although, because he is an embodiment of essentialist thinking, I doubt he would have counted it as a true victory for The Joker unless the bomb actually went off.

           

“I do the best I can with what I have.”- Jim Gordon.

            Lt. /Commissioner James Gordon

Just as the film portrays Bruce Wayne/Batman in his Prime, so too is Gordon. At the beginning of the film he is full of hope, and even when he is entrenched with fighting The Joker he still has hope and believes they can make a difference…until Harvey’s disfigurement and turn. To that end, you may assume that Gordon is the heart of the film. While I am unwilling to go that far it is quite clear that he is indeed the embodiment of pragmatism (beautifully illustrated in the succinct quote above).

            Gordon is the one that makes decisions based upon the knowledge he has at the time. He makes the best decision with what he knows not allowing himself to speculate based in some type of overinvestment in an ideology (as Dent and Bruce are). However, this point of view is costly because it makes Gordon both reactionary and remorseful when he was unable to save Dent. Then when Batman decides to take the fall for Dent to save the city, Gordon is left alone to hold the pieces of this fragile peace together (the dutiful pragmatist that he is) A task that eventually takes its toll on him and his family.

            “Dent is still in there, we have to save Dent. I have to save Dent!”- Jim Gordon.

            Harvey Dent/Two-Face

Harvey Dent is the only character within the film that has a complete story arc.  While Batman Gordon and Rachel end up in different places by the films end, but none of them complete journey like Harvey. The Joker is a fully formed force of nature at the beginning of the film, and the other characters are not given satisfying resolutions. Thus, Harvey Dent is the one the audience is meant identify with, to embrace and empathize. He is the window for them into this world of deranged clowns, demons and darkness; he (like them) doesn’t seem to belong, a spectator to madness…until he succumbs to it. Because of this, Harvey Dent is the embodiment of the duality of humanity and its equal capacity for greatness and horror.  Dent unwillingly becomes the human canvas on which both Batman and The Joker paint.  With each tragedy and triumph you can see how each brush stroke affects him until the picture is completed.

            “I am the Batman.”- Harvey Dent

           

 Harvey Dent idolizes Batman at the beginning of the film, and in many respects he wishes he was Batman (just as Bruce wishes he was Harvey Dent) Dent is the light, the inspiration of goodness that Bruce was hoping for. Driven and passionate in his pursuit to bring Gotham to justice, Dent believes that crime and corruption can be eradicated on all levels. From corrupt cops to the mob itself. This romantic idealism clashes with Gordon’s pragmatic viewpoint several times in the film.  And while Dent’s position is ultimately vindicated, it is he who pays a greater price.

“It’s not about what I want. It’s about what’s FAIR!” – Two Face

            As the war with The Joker continues, and the attacks become more and more personal, Dent begins to crack.  He was fine playing by the rules, when the consequences didn't affect the people he cares about. Once The Joker started to target Rachel, Dent’s morality begins to shift to one of chance, he embraces his duality with the moniker of Two-Face, becoming The Joker’s “ace in the hole”, and a representation of his triumph over Batman.

             

            “Why so serious?”- The Joker

            The Joker

The Joker (in every iteration) has always been the antithesis of Batman. In Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight he is the logical escalation and consequence of the presence of Batman.  In this very simple set up Nolan hints at the long standing question in comics: “Would these supervillains be in Gotham if Batman wasn’t around?” Nolan’s answer is a resounding “No.” Even though it isn’t fleshed out, I would like to think that before Batman arrives in Gotham The Joker wasn’t as flamboyant or theatrical in his crimes. It is only after he observes Batman, and his action throughout Batman Begins that he decided to complete his persona…a devil masked by the face of a clown, to match the angel cloaked in the guise of a demon in Batman.

            The Joker in The Dark Knight embodies Emile Durkheim’s notion of anomie.  Anomie is a state within society characterized by lack of solidified or agreed upon social rules/norms that people can follow.  This social state of anomie (often explained as a period of normlessness and chaos) is common during period of social change, especially when there is a shift in social or political power from one type of authority to another, catalyzed by sudden violence. The social change brought on by Batman in Batman Begins (through his successful crippling of organized crime in Gotham) allows for the Anomie of the Joker to take hold and thrive throughout this film. He is not so much a character as a force of nature that all of the other characters have to react to and are effected by. However, it is ironic that in order cause chaos within an organized bureaucratic system, even The Joker needs to have a plan. Identifying that chaos, at least in the anomic sense, is not the absence of organization or a system, but one that is in opposition to the current social order.

            “Do I really look like a guy with a plan?”- The Joker

            Rachel Dawes

Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight like in Batman Begins is not a character so much so as a plot device and film trope.  The trope that she embodies in this film is that of “women in refrigerators”. Coined by Gayle Simone in the late 1990’s, “women in refrigerators” refers to the consistent plot device in comics (as well as TV and film) that sees female character’s killed off (in often brutal and tortuous ways) in order to progress the character development or story arc of a male protagonist.  Rachel Dawes preforms double duty serving as the motivating plot device for both Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne.  It is her death that pushes Dent over the edge to become Two-Face and destroys what Bruce believes to be his only shot at a normal life.

            Secondly, this film does not pass the Bechdel test for female representation in the media.  This simple measurement is not about measuring the quality or the feminism of a particular film, just whether or not this film has a base standard of gender representation. The components of the Bechdel test are as follows:

1)      Are there two or more women in the film (who have names)?

2)      Do they talk to each other?

3)      Is there conversation lacking exposition and about something other than a man/men?

The Dark Knight only has three female characters, two of which are supporting. The three characters of Rachel Dawes, Ramirez, and Barbara Gordon do not even talk to each other; completely obliterating this test. That, coupled with the aforementioned trope, makes this film, and its predecessor not great representations of women that Nolan had to make up for in The Dark Knight Rises.

PRODUCTION

Source Material

The three graphic novels that acted as primary source material for The Dark Knight was The Killing Joke by Alan Moore, TheLong Halloween by Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale, and The Man Who Laughs by Ed Brubaker.

From The Killing Joke we get:

-          The Joker’s origin story being “multiple choice” (and a reflection of the victim).

-           He’s character motivation that everyone can be like him, it just takes “a little push”

-          Batman breaks his one rule (though at the end of the book he kills the Joker, not Dent)

-          An interrogation scene between Batman and The Joker (though in the book, it’s not really him

From The Man Who Laughs we get:

-          The first meeting between Batman and The Joker

-          The Joker is understood as an unpredictably fast, and capable fighter

-          The Joker is drawn to Gotham because of Batman 

From The Long Halloween we get:

-          The Character of Harvey Dent

-          The slogan “I believe in Harvey Dent.”

-          The alliance between Dent, Gordon and Batman to fight the Mob

-          The seizing of the Mob’s money by the cops

-          The Transformation of Harvey Dent into Two-Face. (In the book it happens in a courtroom which the film teases at the beginning).

-          Two-Face killing corrupt cops and mob bosses (though in the book Two-Face kills Falcone not Maroni).

While there were other references and “Easter eggs” that fans have found over the years none can compare with these three influences.

Cinematography

Wally Pfister is once again Nolan’s man behind the camera. Principle photography on The Dark Knight ran from April-September 2007 filming the majority of the shoot (13 weeks) in the city of Chicago, IL.  As one watches the film the city of Chicago is a predominant figure to the point that it becomes like a second character.  Not only are their breath-taking establishing shots of the cityscape, but many of the scenes shot on location were set against the open windows or the open air of the city skyline.  The scenes that come to mind are A) when Dent and Rachel are walking out of the court room and B) when Gordon and Dent meet in Dent’s office. And C) When Batman is fighting the S.W.A.T. team(s) on several floors of an unnamed building (what in reality was Trump Tower Chicago under construction at that time).  These shots give the city a lively living quality that was a bit lacking in the first film.

One of the biggest changes that Nolan and Pfister made when they began to shoot The Dark Knight is their decision to shoot several of the films key scenes in IMAX(6 scenes a total of 26min).  IMAX (acronym for Image Maximum) is a motion picture film format that is set for cinema projector standards. IMAX boast a larger 15/70mm format than standard film at 35mm. which increases the clarity and richness of the image on screen.

Yet, the quality of the IMAX image came with a cost. The IMAX cameras (previously only used for nature documentaries and animated films) were found to be cumbersome to shoot with.  Unable to get around its size and bulk at the time, Pfister and Nolan had to create a rig to allow the IMAX camera greater maneuverability to get the angles, and close up shots they needed. Also, the running of the IMAX cameras were so loud that it would often drown out character dialogue and director comments just the same, that would have to be replace via ADR (Audio Dialogue Replacement). To limit the burden of the noise generated by the cameras Nolan mainly used the cameras for the major action set pieces.

The results were well worth the hassle.  This film is beautiful, with vibrant color and clear image detail that immerses the audience into the film.

Music

Hans Zimmer alone took on the task to score The Dark Knight. Hans closely worked with Nolan to come up with the right tone for the film, sending the director hours of music samples to find the right notes for The Joker’s theme (settling on what sounded like razor blades on a bow string) and an epic triumphant and haunting melody for Harvey Dent, I recommend that everyone buy the album. I have provided a few samples.

Direction

            Many people, myself included believe that Christopher Nolan should have been nominated for best director for his unbelievable and awe striking work in this film. It is a crisp psychological crime thriller with a script so tight that it barely allows you to breathe.  In those rare moments when you are allowed a respite from your anxiety Zimmer’s haunting music reminds you of the danger that is still lurking just beneath the surface.

 However, I would not call it Nolan’s best work (that as it seems is always yet to come). Yet, the way in which he masterfully weaves together genres while providing the audience with entertainment but a treatise on the philosophy of humanity and morality is just remarkable. He is able to provide both rousting entertainment for those that only seek the Superhero film. But for those that like to look deeper (such as myself), he layers (all of his films but especially) The Dark Knight with socially conscious and philosophical subtext, and with so many layers, an audience member can get a different experience watching it multiple times; which has always been Nolan’s ultimate goal as a filmmaker.  He succeeds in spades with The Dark Knight only to improve with the projects that followed.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

            Many people have commented, in many different media forms that this is the best superhero film.  It has been compared to the Godfather, The Godfather part II, The Empire Strikes Back and other well-known epic films of the past 50 years. While you can watch this film without seeing or acknowledging the existence of the previous (or the following) film. It is not a complete story. I look at The Dark Knight as one piece, the second piece, in Nolan’s story about Bruce Wayne. In that, the larger context, this film means less to the journey of Bruce Wayne that the other films in the trilogy. It is a great and masterfully crafted film.  But it doesn’t give me the sense of satisfaction that I get when I watch the complete story, especially at the end of that story’s third chapter…The Dark Knight Rises.

Snowpiercer Review: A Marxian, Weberian, Totalitarian Train Ride

Author's Note: Please see this film. If you are planning to see this film do not read any further as this review will contain major spoilers.  The power of this film and its storytelling is contingent on knowing as little about the film as possible. Here is the trailer:

Once you have seen the film, I encourage you to read the review. 


  INTRODUCTION

     Being the cinephile that I am, I am always looking for a film to watch and appreciate.  Since I have exhausted most of my desired films currently playing in most mainstream cinema, and I refuse to watch a three hrs explosive set piece designed by Michael Bay (whom I've deemed War of the four horsemen of the film apocalypse), I turned my attention to other possibilities.  In my search, I started to notice a lot of positive buzz around Snowpiercer, a sci-fi Dystopian film by South Korean director Joon-ho Bong (based on a French Cartoon) originally released in 2013 that had just recently made it to the US in limited release. With sci-fi dystopia being one of my favorite genres, I was just hoping to be entertained (even though the critical acclaim had me hopeful for more). But what I got was a film that deals with a lot of social issues in a sociological way. Seeing threads of, Marx's proletarian revolution, Weber's Iron Cage, Totalitarian propaganda and population control this films gives the audience a deeply rich story about the human condition, that should not be missed.

 PLOT

      2014; in an attempt to curb global warming Countries around the world unite to release chemical CW-7 into the upper atmosphere. The result is a new ice age that wipes out all life on earth. 2031: the last surviving remnants of humanity live on a train that is in perpetual motion around the globe.  The train is separated into an elaborate caste system, based upon the type of ticket passengers had when they first boarded. Those with first class tickets live towards the front of the train and those that had 3rd class tickets or were free riders live at the end of the train.  Feeling the pain of the social and economic stratification caused by living at the end of the train, Curtis (Chris Evans) decides to lead a revolt.  As he and his fellow band of rebels (Including John Hurt, Octavia Spencer and Jaime Bell)  move through each compartment, getting closer to the fabled "eternal engine", they are faced with horrific realities that test their mission, their morality, motivations and mortality.

GENERAL ANALYSIS

       One the best compliments that I can give this film is that it is not American made. Therefore, it does not fall into some of the same tropes and plot traps that a lot of genre films that are produced written and directed in the US often succumb. The American film structure, especially within the genre of Sci-fi fantasy has a certain structure and character moments that are often repeated which, for a fan often gets boring and predictable.  Snowpiercer, sets up a number of these tropes, but just when you thought you knew the character(s) their motivations and future actions, the film reveals something in the narrative that changes the audience outlook on the film, causing them to reassess. The ending of the film goes beyond what we would typically expect from Hollywood, and that is always a breath of fresh air, and a welcomed change of pace.

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

     Themes

           Marxism

          It is quite clear from the promotional trailers, screen caps and descriptions of this film that the aforementioned caste system and subsequent revolt is reminiscent of the proletarian revolution Karl Marx envisioned in his most famous work. In the film, the class distinctions on the train (at least at the beginning) mirror the class struggles between Marx's bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  Those in the front of the train represent the bourgeoisie ( their figure heads being played by the ever brilliant Tilda Swinton and Ed Harris) and those at the back of the train represent the proletariat.
       Those in the front of the train speak of their position as one of divinity not of privilege; even to the point where some of the bourgeoisie characters try to empathize with the proletariat; bemoaning that their position is not without its sacrifices. Those living in the tail end of the train represent the proletariat, and the impoverished.  Even though the adults in the tail end of the train are not described or shown to be workers on the train ( doing maintenance, or food service for the bourgeoisie), it is clear, given the conditions that they live in, that all they own is their bodies, and they have only their labor power to sell.
      Another Marxian aspect in this class distinction is in the use of families.  Marx believed that the family unit was important to Capitalism because it was a space to recreate the labor force: First, in giving those current workers a space for rest and recuperation before and after work. Second, allowing for a space to have children who will eventually replace the adults in the labor force as they age.  As the film progresses, the audience realizes that the only reason that the tail-end proletariats are allowed to live is because they provide more children (because sex is fun and cheap) to be used as labor on the (manual running) train.
      Thirdly, there is also a Marxian stratification of resources among the front end of the train and the tail end. While the front end of the train dines on Sushi, fresh water, vegetables and fruits and real meat. The tail-end proletariats however, were reduced to cannibalism.

 
         "I hate that I know what human flesh tastes like, and that babies taste best."- Curtis

       After the first month without food, the passengers in the tail end began eating their fellow (weaker) passengers, and babies. To curb this practice, people started willingly gave up body parts so that everyone could survive.  This is an extreme version of communist solidarity.  However, once the bourgeoisie was alerted to this practice they began manufacturing protein bars that are fed to the proletariat (to keep the worker working); its ingredients we learn are all of the unsavory bits of protein found on the train...reminiscent of soylent green.
  
Weber's Iron Cage

       As the film reaches its ideological climax, the proposed Marxian revolution that the audience has been invested in throughout the most of the movie, is revealed to be part of an elaborate bureaucratic process of population control. Every few years, "government" moles in the tail end of the train fuel the fires of rebellion getting the workers to revolt.  The subsequent casualties on both sides (although the ruiling body always makes sure that their are more losses for the proletariat) maintains the population so that the train will continue. This added system of control reminds me of one of the overall messages of The Matrix Trilogy.
     What Snowpiercer and The Matrix Trilogy have in common is the inclusion and interpretation of Max Weber's Iron Cage of Rationality. Being a (some what) contemporary of Marx, Weber concluded that the proletarian revolution that Marx saw as inevitable (due to his faith that people would be fed up and demand social change) was never going to happen. This was because Weber understood that people were regulated by a bureaucracy which not only dehumanized, disenchanted and controlled people  but trapped them in what C. Wright Mills called "Private Orbits" unable to see anything or desire anything outside of their own limited perspective leading to complacency and a maintenance of the Bureaucratic order.
       Other, more contemporary scholars like George Ritzer have added that this maintenance of complacency requires distraction, a way to focus attention away from the plight of the oppressed or from their own circumstances in order to quell revolution and revolt.  This is nothing new. In ancient Rome they had the coliseum, In  present day United States we have social media, and endless types of pop cultural entertainment that spans, multi-media platforms. If we spend as much money on these distractions as we did on fighting homelessness, poverty or disease all of these social problems would be eradicated.
        In SnowPiercer, there are two main types of distractions used by those in power. The first is a socialized system of propaganda that deifies Wilford ( Ed Harris) the creator of the train forcing children to watch brainwashing videos that reinforce stereotypes as well as recite mantras that invoke fear of leaving the train. This aspect of the film is paralleling both the regimes of North Korea and China in the way they present their leaders and censor information.

 
     The second type of distraction that those in power uses in the film is hope itself. Ritzer, Weber, and Mills knew (and their work is a testament to this notion) that one way to keep people under control is to give them the illusion of choice and the illusion of freedom and free will.  Just as we have the illusion of choice in our own entertainment (which is presented and packaged and controlled by only 6 companies), and other commodities through manufacturing desire, in the film the desire for revolution is similarly manufactured and controlled.  Thus, like the other illusions, the revolution in the film (being a part of the system) doesn't change anything. Ironically, the first non coerced choice that is made in the film, is what leads to the ultimate demise of the train and almost everyone on board. But leaves enough for life to start again.

      CONCLUSION

         This is a deep, well crafted, thought provoking and entertaining film. It is a premise that lends itself to rich sociological analysis ( as you can see).  I assumed that a film with this premise to be "believable" there would have to be some human rights abuses and a fair share of atrocities...and I got that in spades.  This movie is so powerful for me because it takes the very real types of inequality, and difficult social problems we see in our contemporary society (from war, to classism, poverty hunger, terrorism, drug addiction, and genocide) and takes them to an extreme for the fantastical situation presented.  This is what good science fiction/fantasy is supposed to do; take relatable problems and social issues and present them in a different way for the purposes of entertainment, but more importantly as an allegory.  This is the brilliance of Snowpiercer, a film that should at least be appreciated (if you hate it or the genre) and at most celebrated as an important contribution to film and social analysis.

Sociology Alert! SCOTUS Ruling: Corporations are more of a person than Women

      Well, in case you've been living under a rock this morning...(or a luddite) you will know that the SCOTUS ruled on the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act ("Obama care").   

     To give those not in the know some context.  The contraception mandate in the Affordable care act requires all employers to provide birth control for their employees. Craft store Hobby Lobby (a Family owned company) appealed this mandate stating that it was in violation of  their religious freedom.  The ruling given out today (in a 5-4 decision) was in favor of Hobby Lobby and their corporate personhood, over the body rights and agency of women.  You can read a bit about this decision here, here and here.
       The idea of corporate personhood has been in contention for some time, mainly because by law a corporation can buy and sell property and be sued like any other person in court. However, what makes a corporate person different is that they can not be tried for murder as a non-corporate person can. Also, even though corporations have been sued for crimes and human rights abuses, unlike most people, corporations have the money to pay settlements and if not, they have armies of lawyers to tie up the case in the court system. With this lack of accountability being so common, some research has identified a corporation as a textbook Psychopath.

        The source of this major social problem is The profit motive, inherent in Capitalism as an economic system, which results in the exploitation of both the workers and the consumers. Unchecked and unregulated Capitalism leads to the complete deconstruction of human rights across the globe. As a sociologist, what I didn't consider is that corporate control would be so absolute (a part of what Mills calls the The Power Elite ) that the they would be able to roll back civil rights so completely to the point where over 1/2 of the US population would be considered sub human.

   This decision is another recent blow to the rolling back of reproductive rights for women in the US.  The other blow was the recent Massachusetts court case that determined that protest buffer zones for planned parenthood clinics (where they provide abortions and other services like counseling and health care consultations) were illegal. Not to mention that many other states (like North Dakota) whose clinics that provide abortions are few and far between that many women have to travel for hours just to get there.  It is practices like this that have made reproductive rights for women de facto( in practice) illegal. However, with the recent court ruling(s) it looks like this de facto illegality will soon be de jure ( by law). 
     In protest to this ruling, many feminist scholars and organizations have taken to the internet to show their justifiable outrage. They mention that the 5-4 decision was made by men and that all of the Supreme Court Justices that are women decided against this ruling. In fact, in an act of pure awesomeness, Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a 35 page dissenting opinion where she had some amazing things to say .  Essentially, these are individuals and organization that are railing against the very tangible reality of the patriarchy and male privilege.
     A prime example (in this context) of male privilege is that women in our culture are burdened with responsibility of birth control more so than men.  Men then have the privilege of not being responsible for birth control (assuming women are either on the pill, or if they get pregnant they will "just take care of it") leading to some men being coercive to reduce condom use ( typical storylines being: "I want to be closer to you, I want to feel you etc.). Because of the aforementioned burden, there are more options for female responsible birth control, and while they only recently became federally funded (long after pills like Viagra), the Hobby Lobby court decision makes federal funding of female responsible birth control a moot point. 
     What is the most telling by this court decision is that patriarchy is still alive and well in the US. In the most recent Supreme Court election, many people celebrated a landmark event when 3 out of 9 women were seated on the Supreme court at the same time. Yet, as this court ruling painfully illustrates it is not enough to make tangible legislative changes.  Women only make up 1/3rd of the Supreme Court, but women make up over 50% of the US population, therefore a majority of men on the Supreme Court are making decisions for all women. 
   The question that I am plagued with is: what does corporations have to gain from excluding women's access to birth control, aside from controlling women's bodies and reducing their personhood status in the US? It would seem that since women make up the majority of all part time workers, which many corporations take advantage of (due to the exploitative behaviors inherent of the profit motive), wouldn't they elect to work somewhere else that gives them more reproductive agency? Are corporations like Hobby Lobby, relying on the gender pay gap and the poverty trap to keep women in under employed( so they can't go anywhere else) in order to maintain their staffing needs?  But like the kerfuffle with Chick-Fil-a, this is not about rationality, this is about inequality and with court decisions like these they are becoming more overtly (instead of covertly) structural in nature.
     Part of this source of this shift in our cultural context is due to the belief that we are in a post feminist society, that we have reached equality of the genders.  a barometer of this change is in the increasing inability of young women to define themselves as feminist, even though they may support and defend feminist policies. To them feminist is a bad word, it is old fashioned and unnecessary.  This is due to not only the minimization, and vilification of feminism in the media ( books like "The Decline of Men" and "The End of Men" to anything that Rush Limbaugh says ala "Femin-azi") but the rise of exaggerated femininity and enlightened sexism . The point, not only have many young women been socialized and enculturated to hate other women (going so far to denounce and deny the struggles of women in the past whose victories they benefit from), but to validate the male gaze, and the hypersexualization of women as forms of empowerment.  This is the quintessential example of how patriarchy has won...for now.

The Films of Christopher Nolan: The Prestige

      The fifth film in my in-depth analysis of the films of Christopher Nolan is the underrated and often overlooked masterpiece The Prestige.  Often referred to as "one of  magician movies of 2006", The Prestige competed for audience attention with The Illusionist, another period piece about magicians starring Edward Norton which was released a scant two months (almost to the day) earlier.  While the fear of audience fatigue was very real, Nolan's superior story and storytelling translated into higher box office numbers and greater praise.  Based on the book of the same name , Nolan's story of rival magicians in London at the turn of the 20th century may seem muted compared to his previous film at that time.  However, in The Prestige, Nolan crafts a sci-fi period thriller with so many plot twists that it is positively Hitchcockian.

"Are you watching closely?" Alfred Borden

PLOT

      London 1897, two young magicians working as apprentices to a known professional at the time strike up a friendship as they navigate the deceptive and secretive world of magic. They are the perfect pair, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) has superb technical skill.  There is no trick that he can't deduce or recreate; driving his desire to push the boundaries and "get his hands dirty." Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) is an excellent showman, able to manipulate the crowd to get them to believe in the impossible.  This friendship is ruptured when, during a magic trick on stage, Borden pushes boundaries a bit too far resulting in the death of Angier's wife.  What follows is an intense rivalry spanning several years that pushes both men to the brink of insanity and into the realms of science, sacrifice and the supernatural.

ANALYSIS (spoilers ahead)

   One of the more interesting things that I noticed during my analytical viewing of The Prestige is that this is a film without a clear protagonist and antagonist.  Now, given the set-up and structure of the film you might assume that this distinction is clear: Angier's wife dies, we as an audience are supposed to sympathize with him and the film follows Angier's story from more or less his perspective.  But as the film continues, and Angier is more willing to "get his hands dirty" we become less sympathetic to his choices and his methods and we realize that the reason we don't follow the story from Borden's perspective is to keep his method to his magic a secret.  By the film's end, we realize that each man, in their pursuit of perfection, have both given (and lost) everything that is important to them; and are worthy of both sympathy and contempt.  

"No one cares about the man in the box." Robert Angier

         Themes

 

       On the surface, this film has they very blatant themes of obsession, revenge, sacrifice and rivalry that are common in a lot of Christopher Nolan films.  In fact they are so common that one could say that you know you are watching a Christopher Nolan film when one of two things happens: 1) there is a protagonist with a psychological problem that attempting to deal with that problem through revenge, sacrifice or both. 2) A non-linear story structure.  Because these are themes that are in virtually every Christopher Nolan film ( and I have addressed them in other reviews) The theme that I am going to focus on in this review is this film being an allegory for the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience. 

        In the beginning of the film, Cutter (Michael Caine) explains the three parts of a magic trick:

        "Every magic trick has three parts or acts. The first is called 'The Pledge'. A magician shows you something ordinary; a deck of cards, a bird, or a man. He shows you this object, may even ask you to inspect it, for you to see that it is indeed real...normal. But it probably isn't.  The second part of the act is called 'The Turn'. The magician takes that ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary.  Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it; because, of course, you are not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be...fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet, because making something disappear isn't enough, you have to bring it back. That is why every magic trick has a third part; the hardest part, the part we call 'The Prestige'."

     For Christopher Nolan, this is not just a description of a magic trick, it is the description of the filmmaker's relationship with the audience.  The filmmaker is the magician in this analogy and as such, Nolan gives the pledge, the turn and (hints at) the prestige for the film within the first few opening shots.  It is almost as if Nolan, through Cutter's speech and the underlying shots is giving us his film philosophy, or at the very least his own job description. 

    Nolan's brilliance shines through when we the audience (much like the character of Angier) believe that the method (of this film) must be more complex than it actually is and so we start adding complexity to the story even though we've already been given all of the pieces of the puzzle but we don't know how all the pieces fit together until the end of the film. Once we know ending (secret), and we've gotten a peak behind the curtain, it changes the experience of watching the film. Thus, when watching the film multiple times, you get a different experience (which is Nolan's goal in every single film he makes).

      As I was contemplating this theme ( seeing the film a 6 and 7th time through) I legitimately asked my self "Do today's audience really want to be fooled?" In our multi-platform social media spoiler filled culture, it seems that not only people don't want to be fooled but they want to figure out or come up with the answers before hand...to be smarter than the filmmaker; even though there is significant evidence that shows that spoilers (for stories we are invested in) reduces anticipation and therefore reduces the pleasure we receive from them. The conclusion that I have come to (aside from spoilers being a way for individuals to get a sense of self, recognition or their fifteen seconds of fame on the internet) is that many people in the audience want to be smarter than the filmmaker because many filmmakers treat the audience like they are morons.   This is why films that have wide appeal have no plot, no story and are socially, culturally and politically problematic. Yet, filmmakers like Nolan who treat their audience's intelligence with respect, are given latitude to suspend disbelief.

            "It took courage to step into that machine every night; not knowing if I would be the man

              in the box, or the prestige." Robert Angier

 Characters 

      This film is full of stellar performances from all the principle and supporting cast. It is their abilities that keeps the illusion Nolan is creating in tact.  Hugh Jackman's Angier is assumed to be the films protagonist (as I've previously mentioned) but when he stops being driven by revenge and becomes a man obsessed he stops becoming sympathetic.  Yet, like his character, Jackman is so earnest and affable that the audience rationalizes (almost) all of his behaviors.  He goes around the world to find an answer to a simple trick and ends up paying for it with his life 100 times over...literally.  Meanwhile, the Borden twins not only sacrifice their lives ( each only having half a life) but the lives of their loved ones ( both Sara's suicide and one brother murdered by Angier's trap).  This is what happens when extremes meet. 
      As an aside, I really enjoyed Rebecca Hall's performance as Sara in this film.  Her ability to tell the difference (albeit subconsciously) between the Borden brothers by the way each of them says "I love you" was brilliant. To that end, I have been able to determine (through several viewings of the film) which Borden brother was in each scene: Borden (S) loved Sara and Borden (O) loved Olivia. 

      First off let me say that I believe that Borden (O) was more in love with Magic and its technical mastery than Borden (S). Also, Borden (S) tends to be more sympathetic and remorseful towards Angier at the beginning of the film. But here is a list of the scenes and which Borden brother is present:

1) Borden (O) ties the knot that kills Julia (Angier's wife)
2) Borden (S) shows up at Julia's funeral
3) Borden (O) gets baby news from Sara even though the baby is Borden (S)'s
4) Borden (O) gets shot by Angier
5)Borden (S) gets his wound tended by Sara
6) Borden (S) Buys Sara the house
7) Borden (O) sabotages Angier's acts
8) Borden (O) gets buried alive
9) Borden (S) when Sara is drinking
10) Borden (O) when fighting with Sara
11) Borden (S) wants to leave Angier alone
12) Borden (O) is framed by Angier and executed
13) Borden (S) avenges his brother and takes back his daughter.

Cutter (Michael Caine) is our way into the film.  He explains exposition and gives us all the answers we need...even if we don't believe them. Scarlett Johansen as Olivia serves her purpose ( as a prop and object for each man) she is the distraction Nolan uses to keep us in the deception of the film.  Lastly, David Bowe is Tesla...Nolan's only choice, and in the film you can see why...amazing.

Photography

   Wally Pfister once again is Nolan's director of photography on this picture.  The film is full of sweeping wide gorgeous shots of Colorado that make the world feel large and expansive and by association the film as well. However that open feeling is often stunted whenever the characters are walking outside on a backlot set.  Instantly, the wide open feeling is contained in a suffocatingly tight space that makes London of the early 20th century seem miniscule. 
     However, Pfister does a lot of shoulder camera work in this film that adds an organic feel to a lot of the dialogue ( like watching a play) because the actors aren't sure when they are getting a close up or even if the camera is covering them at that moment.  This also allowed for actors to freely explore the sets during shooting having less restriction on space...meaning that they didn't have to stand in a proper spot to get camera coverage. Because of this method, there were many times in the film where I felt the movement of the camera added to the emotional resonance of the scene.

Direction and Conclusion

       Outside of The Dark Knight Trilogy,(which stands in a class by itself) The Prestige is one of my two favorite Nolan films. The other being Inception, these are both films about film ( more on that when I get to my review of Inception). In The Prestige, Nolan is illustrating his vision of the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience.  It is also clear that this film represents Nolan's love of cinema and literature in its construction and period setting.  His passion for the art of film is so strong in this film that you can not help but be suck in by the undertow. Yes, this film could have been handled by another director, maybe even a director for hire, but it would be far more formulaic and far less captivating. Yet, regardless of its scope and grand themes, this film seems a far more (and welcomed) intimate affair than the previous film Batman Begins, or the following sequel The Dark Knight.