Gimrack: An All-Inclusive History of Cinema from the Dawn of Man to the End of Time

As a deep believer in story, it's hard sometimes to appreciate when a film can become true art without being confined to the rigors and structures normally associated with narrative films. There is a very definite structure to film stories, we know it going into the theatre, while we're watching a film and afterward when we wipe our brow and smile that the hero made it out alright, not knowing if he would or not. The same basic story is being told again and again, and yet movies can tell such fresh stories. Rarely has a film ever come out where this structure is completely absent. And usually when a film deviates from the story structure mastered by screenwriters for a century, it's a disaster.

Here's a quick rundown of basic film story structure. A catalyst happens which changes the "normal world" the hero inhabits. The hero accepts or is thrown into the call of adventure, going into a "special world" where he is in over his head, up against a villain or challenge that seems impossible. Midway through the film he faces an ordeal, one in which his "mask" and sometimes the "mask" of the villain is revealed and it's an ordeal that pushes him further away from the "normal world." (An example of a mid-point sequence is in Sixth Sense when the kid says he sees dead people. The kid reveals himself, and Bruce Willis takes his mask off afterward saying he thinks the kid is crazy and he can't help him.) The hero is then plunged into greater and worse obstacles until he faces off in a climax. If he wins, the film is resolved, if he loses it is a tragedy and we are to learn from his mistakes.

Films fit into the structure almost every time. Sometimes they compress years, months or weeks down into two hours, just showing the important scenes and events that help us follow the story structure. Sometimes the film is over a day or weekend, and the plot points are very sequential. As close as films get to being art, they're still confined by the basic idea that the overall story structure is broken down into arcs, sequences, scenes and dialogue. To paint a painting you have to have paint and a surface. So it is assumed, to make a film you have to have these things to tell your story. But every once in a while a film comes along that transcends this.

The Tree of Life is Terrence Malick's latest film. It's an experimental film and an art film. I don't throw those titles around lightly. I hate experimental and art films. I like story and structure. I like when films have structure, it makes them better. I hate films that feel like they can do what they want with no regard to story, because they usually fail. But I believe that at it's greatest, a movie can be cinema, and cinema is art. Cinema is art where filmmaking is the medium. It can combine different elements of other art forms to form something more alive and real than any other art form, but still it's something you could never touch, as you could a statue. The art is in the image and in the spaces between the images. Just as a novel can have magnificent sentences and an intriguing story, but the art is found between the sentences. 

In normal films we feel the art in one shot to the next and one scene to the next. Sometimes films barely become like great literature, with interesting characters and a unique plot. But then they can go above that and reach what is actually art; something deeper than a creation that is something else. The "something else" is actually something else, something symbolic.
At times Tree of Life just seems so much like an art film that knows it's an art film and just is randomly showing you images and breaking the norms, and it's at these times when the audience is the most distant from the film. There's a reason films have structure, structure involves characters and growth and that's what ties us emotionally to the film. But then what else is film, but a dream. Dreams cut together images and actions seamlessly without room for nothing. Think to your dreams, they're never about nothing. Something is always happening and when they blend together, like "somehow it turned into a snowstorm but we were still at the mall shopping for the thing..." Dream merge together, there's no space between for when you would potentially travel from one part to another. Your mind is editing the boring stuff out, just as a film does. And then when you walk up, what do you remember the most usually? It's the feelings. The raw feelings and emotions. Sometimes they're odd, like being so scared of something, it's so dreadful. Again, like a film, it's how we feel during and after the movie that counts. Tree of Life plays like a dream, going from one thing to the next. It's also how memory works, we don't always remember things in exact order with every detail. We just remember how it felt and what the interesting stuff was.
And that's what makes the film so interesting! It's playing like what the core and heart of what film is....a dream. Like memories, it's just the important stuff and it's aim to get right to the raw feelings. The film primarily is just what Sean Penn remembers and feels from his childhood. The scenes are little glimpses and snapshots, edited together to show what he remembers, and ultimately what he learned from his parents at that age; grace and nature. The film strips every other wasted piece of flesh from cinema, that we're left with the bare bare, nakedly on display to show the audience what the real core of filmmaking is. We're so inclined to watching films heavily clothed in lots of special effects and action told in sequential order, that's what usually makes films beautiful. This film bares it all though, warts and fat. It's tough to watch,  but it's usually tough to look at something totally naked.

The Greatest Movie Ever!

To anyone reading this, that isn't a friend on Facebook, please check out the link below to a film I'll be making in the fall. We're trying to raise money for our budget, which we'll use to build our sets. If possible, please pass it along to anyone interested in backing independent cinema.

Also, as an incentive, I'll do an awesome movie review of any movie you like.

Thanks

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nickreddoch/space-garden-graduate-film-thesis

My 1st Summer Movie!!!! Green Lantern

Being a stay at home dad is great. I get to watch a lot of TV. Sarcasm. The morning is spent trying to keep the boys occupied, either with a nap or with the flickering box, so I can take my own nap. So PBS kids is on, because flickering color is way better than the talking heads on the Today Show or CNN. Then the afternoon is spent catching up on my DVR list. Mostly it's random things from the History Channel, College Football Live and lots of re-runs of Seinfeld and The Office. Occasionally I squeeze in a movie off the list, like The Crazies or The Other Guys.

But today, I got out of the house and went to the movies by myself, something I said I'd never do, but in the last 6 months I've done 3 times. "Two f"ing babies at the same time"(This American Life Episode) makes it impossible for Betsy and I to go to the movies together.  Needless to say, the people in front of me decided they absolutely needed to get out of the house, and went with their toddler that didn't care to be there. I wasn't upset at their choice, I just felt really sorry for them because apparently they really, really, really needed to get out of the house. Anyway.....Green Lantern.

Green Lantern - We are now living in a post Iron Man world. That movie set the watermark for all superhero movies now. And with the exception of Nolan's Batman series, superhero movies have sort of gotten into a rhythmic funk of mediocrity. Green Lantern fits right into that mold of pretty good superhero film, but doesn't quite get over the hump to be really great. The sad part, though, is that they really tried to.

The film follows the usual 1st film in a series, it's the backstory of the character, Hal Jordan. He's a test pilot, his love interest thinks he's a slacker dofus, he's living in the shadow of his Dad....actually really close to the Iron Man story isn't it? Except, Hal doesn't have it so bad, his life is actually pretty good, he just stumbles upon getting the green lantern ring, or it finds him or something. The first half also goes through the backstory of the whole Green Lantern Corps, and this huge unstoppable threat that could wipe out the Universe, yadda yadda. Great place to start the series, the threat is total annihilation of the Universe. That's actually the watermark that this movie adds to cinema, before threats were The Entire City!, The Entire Country! or The Entire World!!!! Nope, this film trumps all that and goes for the whole Universe. Keep in mind; Hal Jordan just got the ring, he's the newest Corps guy amid thousands and before this he knew nothing of anything off the planet Earth at all, oh and btw this Universe destroying thing just killed the best Green Lantern guys easily. But he's the guy to do it.
That's actually not the real problem with the film, to be honest there wasn't really anything "wrong" at all. It was laid out properly, like a mom laying out her kids clothes for the next day. In fact, little foreshadowing hints were dropped here and there to make you smile later.

So what is the real problem? Mediocrity, that's what the problem is. The film sort of just balances between comic book wonderment and real life what- would-it-be-like feeling. And because of that, it has no foundation. We know the characters, but it's because they're cartoons. The plot and characters were basically like the cartoon movies that have been put out the past few years, by both Marvel and DC. And those movies are actually really good, but they're cartoons. This is a feature film. Or should have been. Iron Man was so good because it told the story of a flawed man so well. The action was sort of just incidental. Green Lantern seemed to be based around action a little too much. (It is an action adventure film, I know, I know.) But when you start to present yourself as an adult film with real people, you should follow through.

The one great thing I think the film did do well, was that the theme was actually really telling to the story of the comics. Superhero films are all about courage and fear and really base emotions. Good versus Evil at it's core. Green Lantern was all about that, it pitted the good guys with strong will and courage against the pure evil of fear. I'm not a fan of the Green Lantern comic book, but from what I can gather it's about really solid core values of being courageous and having honor. These guys have an oath and are sworn to protect the Universe. With their rings they can construct anything in their minds and it's as strong as their will is. That's what makes Hal Jordan so strong, his will and his courage against evil. Visually that was a no brainer, the rings and the constructs that they made were awesome to see, but they really did a solid job in putting that thoroughly in the story. And in my opinion, the best superhero movies are the ones that really get into the core of what makes the comic great. Dark Knight did it, Iron Man did, the first two Spidermans did it, and anytime a superhero film fails, it's usually because they made it about action and awesomeness rather than about the core of the character and what the comic was all about. And character is what's really awesome. Thumbs up.


Top 5 Superhero Movies


5. 4 Way Tie - Batman(1989), Spiderman, X-Men, Batman Begins
4. Iron Man
3. Spiderman 2
2. X-Men 2: X-Men United
1. The Dark Knight

The Conspirator

Because it has been so long, and because we've put a temporary hold on our Netflix (because I was deep in the semester and the babies drain our time), I've decided to go ahead and review a film that we saw in the theatre. Hopefully in the next few weeks we'll go back to watching our Netflix again.

The Conspirator - A Robert Redford film. How delightful. I loved A River Runs Through It. But that film like this one has a bit of a gulf between the audience and the characters. The Conspirator follows the true events of the trial of one of Lincoln's secret assassinators, a woman who owned a boarding house that John Wilkes Booth frequented. I have yet to go to the Wikipedia page to find out how much of the film is factual, but it seems like they took great care to get it all right. At least as far as the overall facts. I'm sure a lot of the personal details of the characters are fabrications, because at times it seemed either too dramatic or it was like an episode of Matlock, with James McAvoy finding little clues here and there.

So like the overall facts of the events, the film kind of wavers on the emotional tie we're supposed to feel. McAvoy we feel for, sort of. He's the golden boy lawyer back from the war, with lots of friends and the perfect girl, and he loves the Union. But he loves Justice even more. His story is supposed to be how does he deal with his love of the Union and his sense of what the Union stands for; justice. Which leads me to my real problem with the film. Mary Surrat, the woman on trial, is just a problem. She isn't a three dimensional person. She was just told to act sad the whole time and occasionally speak softly. The film never moves her beyond just the reason why McAvoy is ruining his social life for. She was just a thing.

But what is the solution to fixing that? There doesn't seem to be one, because every other piece of the film was like a cliche. (I felt like I was watching Amistad Part 2. Not that that film was a cliche, but by copying it's format this film became one.) By making her more personable, they would have just made her the cliche. So what we end up with is the doubtful feeling about her innocence. And that's actually the best part of the film, even though we probably were supposed to feel like she was innocent. Really, looking at the facts, who the heck knows if she was in on it. She probably was involved. But that's what was great about it, the question of is it worth giving even one of the killers of Lincoln a fair trial.

But the film doesn't stand on that. It gives us shadowed metaphors of our present political climate and questions about what does justice really mean. But without a real connection to the person on trial or honestly even the lawyer, we can't totally connect to those ideas. 

A Few Awards Potentials

The Town - You'll hear this a lot from my reviews, it was just alright. The Town was just alright. It's basically a hard nose, violent story about the criminal with a heart. It's supposed to seem like a new take on the genre and it's supposed to feel fresh, but frankly the film was really stale. The film was built on convenience and cliche. They showed you what you needed to see and that's it. We never saw the real FBI tracker's character, he was just Jon Hamm acting like an FBI bank robber catcher. In fact, he was basically playing Keanu Reeves from Point Break, only without the Valley accent. In fact, if I didn't know Jon Hamm from Mad Men I would think he was a horrific actor based on this film alone. He brought nothing to the character, no flaws or quirks or depth, and apparently none was provided for him by the director. And that's what was so typical of the film, you were sort of told about things and shown things when the time was right, like how the character of this neighborhood was, but really you never saw it.

What happens sometimes with films is that it exceeds expectations. Who would have thought Ben Afleck could make a decent movie? He did, so it got lauded. But compare this to The Departed or something with some heart and depth and it's nothing. The Town...pretty good. It gets a B+.

The Kids Are All Right - And that's what it was. It was just alright. I admire their creativity in mapping out a unique story, but when you actually look at the story, it's so basic and childish that you imagine some kids came up with the plot points. Except it's not kids that came up with it, it's a lesbian woman who wanted to make a story about her life experiences. So okay, we have a unique situation, which is a great starting off point, but then it just kind of dribbles along and then what you think is going to happen, happens. Why didn't the story stay with the kids? They were the interesting ones. But no, they had to show the lesbian start having sex with a man, and that becomes the plot. Who cares about them, the kids...why aren't we spending more time with them? Anyway. That's not my problem with the film, actually I don't have a problem with it, like I said, it was just alright.

My actual problem is that people are thinking it's so great and Annette Benning got the GG for her role, and I thought she was the worst part of the film. Her acting, and Julianne Moore's acting and the guy who is always horrible, Mark Ruffalo's acting. It was all horrible. The only good actors were the kids. But they're doing all right, so we can stop worrying about them. I honestly was thinking during the first half of the film that they must not have had a script, it just seemed like the director was just telling Benning and Moore to just improvise a scene and act like a gay married couple. The timing was off, it wasn't funny, they weren't saying anything interesting. These are two amazing actresses and they were just floundering around, and everyone thinks they're so good; they're like a real gay couple, blah blah...No. The film needed to be either A. funnier, B. have a plot that focused on some real problems, or C. Stick with the kids, the only thing interesting going on.

Winter's Bone - The Best buzz worthy film I've seen on DVD. (I saw Social Network in the theatre.) Now this is a film with real drama, with some real heart, with something real to say. And it actually isn't getting the year end buzz it deserves. It follows the story of a girl who has to make sure her father gets to his court date or they'll lose the house which was put up for bail. It takes place in rural Missouri, and I mean rural. From the start, it's almost like they're in a third world country, except you know it's America. The Mother is almost brain dead, so the teenage girl has to take care of her little siblings. It's heartbreaking, but so empowering seeing this girl take control of the dire situation she's in. From top to bottom she's determined, from making sure the kids get fed and to going deeper and deeper into finding her father.

It seemed for a while that the film was just going to be her going from place to place saying, "Have you seen my dad?", but slowly the story unravels. Honestly, a lot of the details and nuances of the relationships are lost because it's hard to pay 100% attention for the whole time, but you get the idea by the end. 

Great film. It's raw and deliberate and shows a side of America that is so overlooked, even by the reality shows.

Because Kyle Asked: An Animation Special

Because Kyle Olson asked what animated movies DO I like, I decided to put the answer into a blog post. As well, since it's that time of year when there are a myriad of cartoon specials dancing around television, what better time than now to talk about my favorite animated movies.

I spend an awful lot of time talking about the suck cartoon movies out there; from Cars to Shark Tale to Emperor's New Groove, I hardly get to the really good animated films. In fact, my favorite film from last year was Fantastic Mr Fox. Happy Holidays, here is my top 10 Favorite Animated Films.

10. Ratatouille/The Incredibles - Tied for 10th Place, and perhaps a spot deserving of many of Pixar's best films from Toy Story to Finding Nemo, but these two stand out as two of my favorites from them, and for different reasons. Ratatouille is prime example that Pixar really knows how to tell a story. The movie is so captivating from start to finish, it's like they've re-invented the same story structure that's been around for thousands of year, but making it feel so fresh and new. This was the first of the so-called "Art House Pixar" films, making a film that was more like an adult movie than a children's animation, the film has great themes and interesting dialogue. I can't say anything bad about the film. Even the main voice talent, Patton Oswalt is stupendous.

The Incredibles is in the same vein, a film that feels like it could be for adults. It's the classic, kids will love it while not getting all the jokes, yadda yadda. But it's true, what's playing here is the average family allegory played out as superheroes. Each super member of the family has a power related to their personality and social position; the mom stretched a million directions, the invisible daughter, the energetic and bored boy, and the strong father emaciated by society. If this were live action, which it seems in many ways it already has been in some ways in other films, it would have probably been overlooked or at the least not regarded by the critics the same way. Which shows the importance of stretching the limits of genre, this film went in a direction no animated film had gone.

8. Sword in the Stone - A childhood favorite. The story is simple enough, even for the likes of Disney. Instead of delving into the adventures of the King Arthur, the film follows his backstory, which is taken from an 20th century author's story about the Legend of Excalibur, rather than from the original tales. Interesting how the story was slightly watered down even before Disney got their hands on it. But as most Disney films go, this is the story of adolescent struggling with challenges larger than they can comprehend. Young Arthur has little to no control over his surroundings, even pulling the sword out is by accident. Then what makes this story so magical? The spectacle and presentation; mostly involving Merlin. He has a Wizards' Duel, he transforms Arthur and himself into animals, and my favorite thing he puts his whole household (in which everything has personalities) into his bag.) The sugar cup! Oh boy, what a naughty little utensil.

7. Secret of NIMH - Another childhood favorite, but this one holds up even more, which is a surprise, you'd think it wouldn't. It has the look of those old, forgettable Non-Disney Animated films, but this one is better and deeper. The story is solid, and leads your imagination down a deep hole where you can explore the many possibilities of the NIMH world. In fact, the books have a lot of great adventure stories. But alas, no immediate sequels were meant to be for this low performer. Maybe it was just a little too dark for the masses of children and their parents to grasp. At any rate, it's a modern set adventure that has a timeless feel of a classic myth. And I love it.

6. Kung Fu Panda - Finally, Jack Black in an animated film playing basically himself, but more awesome. This film kind of breaks my rule of not liking anachronistically wrong cartoons, but who cares, this film was awesome. Who cares that it's supposed to be set in ancient China, but Jack Black is like a kid growing up in 1980's San Fernando. In every other way, this is done so right. It's like they merged all the good things from Karate Kid and every awesome Kung Fu movie, then packaged it in an awesome anthropomorphically animal movie for awesomeness. I was saying Skadoosh all Summer after this came out. And now that I remember that awesome word, I'm going to use it all Winter. Skadoosh!

5. Wall-E - If you could make a captivating animated film without using any dialogue for 45 minutes, I will put you on this list. If you can also add in some social commentary and a love story between two robots, you will displace this film from my heart. No animals (besides a bug), humans take a back seat, and hardly any dialogue, make for a weird combination to make a cartoon movie, especially one set in a bleak future. But as the best animators do, they provide a lovable hero without conversations or heavy plot. Before all that starts, we know and love Wall-E, laughing and longing with him until finally Eve shows up and turns the world upside down. Pixar was channeling all the great silent-era comedians for this film, and honestly only through animation could you make a futuristic science fiction film that's basically a silent movie romance.

4. Beauty and the Beast - I honestly don't know why I love this film so much. It's packaged perfectly for little girls, but still it appeals to me. Again, it's just that Disney (of old) knows how to tell a story. And here, they tell the Beast story so well. Perhaps, they simplify it too much from the classic fairy tale, and also classic Cocteau film, but honestly this is the blueprint for all romance stories. I'm probably mistaken, but its basically the first romance comedy. Disney just managed to strip away the unnecessary parts, like the sisters and some details, then added in three hot triplets and made a perfect film. In fact, my only gripe is without Gaston himself, he should have forgotten about Belle and married the three triplets.

3. Dumbo - Which leads me to another silent hero; Dumbo. He says even less than Wall-E does, but still he manages to capture your heart. Like Sword in the Stone, this really is another example of a youngster trapped in a bigger world that he can neither understand nor control. As well, there isn't much of a story either, Dumbo becomes an outcast and through the help of a friend triumphs and saves his mother. All in 60 minutes. Considering that a good 10 minutes is taken up with the Pink Elephants song, there is barely a story at all here. But who cares, this is spectacle at its finest...a child elephant with huger than normal ears, "black" crows singing, a dark musical number about being drunk and seeing images, plus one of my favorite animated bit parts; the Stork. It's fun, it's easy, and you can always go back to the film for pure joy.

A Break From the List

My Favorite Animated Short

Mickey's Trailer - This cartoon utterly fascinated me as a kid. This is the one where Mickey, Donald and Goofy are traveling in a little trailer. Goofy is driving the car pulling the trailer, while Mickey and Donald are inside. Lots of hijinks ensue, where Goofy almost kills them with his absent minded driving. But what got me was the wonder of the trailer. How they had all the different compartments and how different areas turned into different things, and especially how it all fit into the little trailer.

2. Fantastic Mr Fox - The 2009 Nick Reddoch Movie of the Year Award Winner. This movie was fantastic. I haven't ever read the book, but love Roald Dahl's imaginative worlds. Mixing that with a director that creates worlds in real life places in an animated film and we have the makings of a masterpiece. I'm not going to claim that this film is some kind of masterpiece, but it stands apart from other films so distinctly. The art direction, story pacing, rich detail, fun and interesting characters...there isn't one flaw with it. But who cares about those things, the story was so fun and quirky and for once a film tackles the difficult question of how humans and intelligent anthropomorphic animals and regular animals live together. This film finally acknowledges the difference between smart animals and the dumb ones that can't think, it's part of the plot and basically part of the whole theme of the movie; animal instincts and how to overcome and is overcoming them what makes us civilized? Up didn't ask those kinds of questions, or hint at any deep theme to think about. Fantastic Mr Fox didn't force you to cry in the first 15 minutes only to lead you into some stupid and meandering adventure that ends up making no sense. (That's right, think about Up next time it's a Sunday night and your friends are getting together to watch something fun that everybody loves. Ask yourself, wait...why am I teary eyed at the beginning of the film before I've truly grown attached to this character...wait....is Pixar manipulating me? Wait...what's happening to everyone's eyes...why are they crying...am I actually watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers?....wait....I wanted to watch Finding Nemo....wait!!!!!!)

Fantastic Mr Fox doesn't wow and pizazz you into a spectacle of emotion. It tells a story like Plato (or whoever came up with the 6 things a story should have...was it Aristotle?)...like whoever that philosopher guy intended. Sorry, Pixar...I really liked Toy Story 3.

1. The Legend of Sleepy Hollow - And now we have number 1!!! A forgotten Disney classic, it was released as part of a duo with The Wind in the Willows. But growing up, we had the video cassette of just the Ichabod Crane story, with some hilarious Halloween shorts before it. That tape, which I stole from my Mom's house is so worn out it doesn't play normally anymore. The sound is fine, but the frames frlicker and move off the screen. Luckily, I bought the DVD used and it's as good as new, but now has the Mr. Toad part with it.

So what makes this film so good? It's spoken entirely by Bing Crosby! And he sings through a lot of it. The whole film is just one big piece of Disney kitsch. On top of that, it's Disney's dark kitsche, like the Haunted Mansion or Something Wicked This Way Comes, it's evil and demented, but never entirely over the line. But still, just like on the ride Haunted Mansion, some of the details are really dark if you think about it.

In Ichabod, there's drinking (even by animals) and attempted murder and of course a Headless Horseman that may or may not have killed the main character. It's wicked fun, and I watch it every chance I get.

Dark City and the dark cinema of the 90's

The late 90's were kind of a blur. The technology that had been imagined and sometimes used in some sense was now coming around into everyday use. Cell phones, the internet, even cloning was real. The future was here. Or was it? People were still wearing jeans, rock and roll was still popular, but somehow the world was struggling to deal with it all. The world was moving faster and faster. For the first real time, computers were being outpaced at faster rates than consumers could purchase them. And all of a sudden in the world, a person alone could be in so many places at once and almost be no where at all. This is the time  frame that brought us a new range of film that like previous generations was struggling to cope with the world around. Some of the questions were the same; why am I here, who am I, what does it all mean. These questions have been asked since story crept into film, but now something new was happening. Filmmakers started questioning man's very existence. Where are we? Are we even we? These films weren't just thinking outside the box, they were questioning the very box's existence.

The Matrix, The Truman Show, and Dark City all landmark this trend, that has seen American film make the transition into the 21st Century, asking the questions that true art should be asking, and asking them in new ways.

The Truman Show was ahead of the reality show curve that came at us later in the 90's, took over in the 00's and hasn't left us still. Truman is a man who is living unawares in a tv show based all around him, where everything is fake; from his friends, to the town he lives in, to the sky above him. His first clue is a studio light falling from way up above. His world is literally coming down around him.

In The Matrix, the world as we know it is actually a computer program that we're plugged into to feed machines off our energy. In the Truman Show at least what he was doing was real, the world he knew was real, it was just fake. And outside his studio home, the world existed normally. In The Matrix, the whole world was fake. But still, you had your identity, you were still you, just an imagined self image, with flaws and talents. And again, the world outside The Matrix was real, albeit a futuristic wasteland.

In Dark City, mysterious aliens control a city, which is set in space, where they experiment on humans to try and find out what makes them unique; swapping out their memories and cycling them through endless cycles of lives. They not only control the city, by shifting building and streets to their choosing, they shape the lives of the people, changing jobs, spouses and sometimes circumstances and situations. In Dark City, the place isn't real. The world outside that place is empty. And your identity isn't even real. Where are you? What are you doing here? And most importantly, who are you?

A look at the evolution of Dark City's influences will help shed light on both social history and it's ties to the cinema that was made at the time. The most obvious influence to Dark City is, of course, Metropolis. (One of my favorite films of all time, and partially the reason I'm in the film industry.) The allusion to Metropolis is most obvious in it's production design and apparent themes. Metropolis is about a society literally split in two, where the upper half controls the lower half, literally. The poor live below and the rich live above. We can look at the simplicity of the film and laugh, but early cinema was by it's nature, and by necessity, very simple. What's so very clear in Metropolis is who is controlling the city and it's inhabitants. It's simple class struggle, but set in the distant future. It's social commentary about class warfare was fitting to it's time. In Dark City, class structure is joked about in one sequence, where the "Strangers" are placing lower class people into a rich person's setting with new memories of that life. But they know nothing of the switch, and the film moves on. What was so obvious with Metropolis, the idea of a whole society taking back control, basically through revolution, is still present with Dark City, but it follows one man. This one man is a theme shown in many of the modern science fiction films, dating from even Star Wars on to The Matrix, The Truman Show and Dark City. This one has the power in him all the time, but he's got to learn to control it, and with that power he can change everyone else's lives. Even in The Truman Show, where everyone knows the truth but him, he triumphs and allows everyone else to triumph with him and see that you can break the shackles.

Metropolis also brings in the expressionist motif and theme; the world around is distorted and dark. It doesn't always end up like it should, just like it doesn't look like it should. In Dark City, the city is ever changing, even the walls can turn into doors. Both sides, the humans and the Strangers, are somewhat at a loss for what's real. The Strangers keep changing the city and the memories, but the Strangers are also at a loss for what's inside the human's mind and soul. They can't seem to figure out what makes the humans tick, and they especially are at a loss when Murdoch begins using their powers.

The other great influence to Dark City is film noir. The film has all the trappings of a great noir; the hardened detective, the singing dame, the man waking up over a dead body not knowing what happened. Blade Runner is often touted as the great mix of Noir and Sci-Fi, but I don't think it fits so well as with Dark City.
These three science fiction films are the pre-cursors to the first genre films of the 21st Century. By the 2000's we were no longer questioning technology, and by extent science fiction films went back into asking the same questions science fiction had always been asking, what will we do when...we can clone, when zombies take over, when AI will kill us? Superhero films and merging of sci-fi and disaster films have taken over, i.e. Transformers and Cloverfield. It will either take another science or technology breakthrough to jolt the minds of filmmakers or a new set of filmmakers to begin asking real questions again to make the genre new and relevant.