4 films in 10 days, is it 2004 again?

2004 was a helluva year for films. Week after week it seemed like there was another gem on offer either at Vue or The Belmont that I could trot on down to see. This also coincided with when I took up smoking, so what better way to please the nicotine demon and film geeks on my shoulders? Timing is everything.

Fast forward to the last 2 years, and my cinema trips have vastly depleted. Some of this was to do with Uni work and watching certain films over and over again, so when I needed a break from that I would read or come online or something else that cost no money. The other side of the equation is the standard and draw of a lot of films. Don't get me wrong, I've seen many trailers where I initially thought, "Yeh, gonna have to go and see that when it comes out," but then by the time it comes out I'm already tired of it due to the constant ads on TV or online that come out of NOWHERE and mess up the audio of the song I'm listening to on YouTube. Well done distributors, you've pop-upped yourself out of a customer.

So anyway, the past 10 days have been like a return to my 2004 form, except I haven't been going to get out of the house to smoke... and my student card runs out in 5 days. Timing is everything.

Film 1 - A Lonely Place to Die
I am a Melissa George fan. There, I said it. Probably wont be the last time I say it either, the girl is starting to become the queen of the horror/thriller genre due to her work in The Amityville Horror (a college favourite), wAz, 30 Days of Night and the very under-rated Triangle. Seeing she was in this and that it was set in Scotland was all the convincing I needed.
It starts off in a straight-forward enough fashion; she is an American climber who is with a small group planning on a several day hiking/climbing extravaganza. One thing I really liked in the opening 15 minutes or so was a reference (I think) to a German film called North Face which should really be seen by more people. North Face is the true story about 2 German mountaineers in the 1930s who are asked to climb a treacherous mountain in a propaganda exercise to demonstrate the German spirit by overcoming this impossible mountain. From seeing their reference to this, I wondered if they would take a similar path with ALPTD, to which the answer is no.
The group discover a child in a box underground and so the group abandons their original plan to get the child to safety. Cue some Deliverance and Wicker Man-esque moments, along with the addition of an overly complicated and convoluted sub-plot, and you have a well-shot film that just ends feeling very muddled. Part of the muddled feel comes from the mix of accents; American, English (North and South), Scottish (North and South), Croatian and another East European one which I can't recall.
Aside from that, it was a good film. Not ground-breaking in any sense (aside from when they free the girl of course) but a well-made film with some inspired touches and stunning photography.

Film 2 - Warrior
The first of 2 Tom Hardy films I saw, Warrior is a film I'm still not that sure how much I liked. I did like it, but I've also seen The Fighter, which was a superior film. (Just)
The key difference between Warrior and The Fighter, is the family involved in each film. In The Fighter, the family dynamic was focussed on driving Wahlberg to get the most money from his appearances without much care for the man himself. Bale was awesome as the crack addicted brother who managed to infuriate and win back members of the family at will. (The scene where his mother catches him jumping out of a crack house then singing to her in the car for example.) In Warrior, the tensions in the family are kept as a hazy memory between all involved, with each having their own skewed view of what happened which does further fuel the idea of this being a story based upon a Greek tragedy of some kind; 2 fighting brothers who have been estranged from each other for a long time, a father who is trying to make up for his past that in some ways caused the estrangement, the 3 men unable to get along due to their collective past.
The MMA aspect over the boxing seen in The Fighter does allow the 2 brothers to carry on the narrative of their characters within the ring; Tom Hardy's 'Tommy' is an unstoppable force of rage and quick beatings, whereas Joel Edgerton's 'Brendan' is a calculated methodical fighter who recalls his experience from UFC outings.
I will avoid spoiling the end even though you may guess how it goes, but it's a shame that it came out while The Fighter is still so fresh in the mind.

Film 3 - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
My 2nd Tom Hardy film, and one in which he probably has more lines as a supporting actor than he did as a main actor in Warrior. However Gary Oldman in TTSS is also a leading man who benefits from minimal dialogue here, as he communicates a lot with just a look, and this demeanor tends to bring out more dialogue from the supporting cast.
The second half of the film rattled by as more and more secrets are unraveled and a larger picture is revealed, but the first hour does plod on a bit too slowly. The director also took the reigns for Let The Right One In, another film where speed is replaced with story-telling, going with a steady constant pace until the right moment to put his foot on the gas rather than trying to keep up a frenetic pace. At points in TTSS the mind may start to drift, but it wont take long before something comes along to catch your attention again.
It is a very British spy film, complete with tweed suits filled by middle aged men enjoying pipes, but the British already gave the world Bond, so seeing a film that concentrates on prolonged tension and revealing mysteries at just the right time may not be as exciting as the Bond world, but it's as impressive all the same.

Film 4 - Drive
What a film.
The trailer was somewhat deceptive. I went in thinking this would be a fast-paced adventure with lots of cool driving, like Deathproof but without all the inane chatter. What it was instead was a stripped down and confident film, that said as much about the director as it did for Ryan Gosling.
At the start, Gosling's coolness is established by his certainty and confidence in his own driving and planning abilities; the getaway car is the most common model in California, he knows how/where to hide and how to evade capture without going too fast or getting too furious. He is a composed professional who says very little with his mouth, but a whole hell of a lot with his body language.
As the film goes on, the placidity of the opening half-hour is soon disturbed by the driver's neighbour's (Carey Mulligan) husband getting out of jail and being in debt to bad folks. There is one shot in the lead-up to the driver discovering said hubby having been beaten up which encapsulates what the driver is all about; he cruises slowly past 2 thugs in the car park of the apartment building keeping his eyes fixed on them the whole time as he slides into a space, never once looking ahead of him.
...and that's about as much as I'm willing to say before I give anything away. I will say it was very hard at one point NEAR the end not to let out a cheer.
Whilst it didn't overtake Deathproof driving wise, Drive's soundtrack is at least on a par with Deathproof's as it favours a myriad of synth-pop numbers that add an almost dreamlike element to the film when the music blends with the slow-motion camerawork. The first and final song that plays during the film, is my gift to your ears.

Bad Dreams

So the inspiration for this came in the wee small hours of this morning and after going over and over the dream in my head I thought I'd see if anyone else has similar experiences.

Nightmares suck when they are out-right terrifying, such as being chased by someone/something, or ones where you are completely unprepared for something that's actually happening in the future (like an exam or meeting or the like) and you can't tell if it's real or not til you wake up.

The dream I had last night was not out right terrifying when it was occurring but since waking up and thinking more about it, I can't get it out of my head. So let me tell you about it,

I was in a hilly region on what I presume was on the north-east coast of Scotland where I have a caravan and regularly go to over the summer. Only like in a lot of dreams it wasn't how it actually is in real life, and instead of the caravan being on the beach, I was in a cottage on a former farm estate (I guess) based quite high up a hill.

There were about 20 people or so milling about trying to get things in order, as if they were preparing for a guest or special visitor of some kind. My oldest sister was also there but regularly appeared then disappeared throughout, coming back to tell me to wait for my other sister and parents to arrive.

It then became apparent that the people milling about were mostly scientists, and that the seas were starting to rise so they were predicting how much time was left etc, with the answer being hours. The position of the cottage meant I could look down to where the sea was at the base of some cliffs, but as the sea was dark and the area in shadow, it was hard to tell if it was where it was usually or if it had actually risen.

I kept wandering about while waiting for the rest of my family but the number of milling people gradually depleted so that there were only a couple of waiters and me and my sister left. There was a brand new top of the line police car just sitting on the farm grounds which I started making my way towards to try and start driving to higher ground. I asked my sister where we should go and she said the name of a wee town just south of Aberdeen as it's where our parents and other sister had apparently gone to. "Either there or [some other place I can't remember], we'll see them in heaven soon," she said with a kind of shrug of indifference and peace at the same time.

My sister is quite a fighter so it was weird to hear her ready to give up so easily, then when I turned back round to ask her if she was serious she had disappeared. Where she had been standing I could see the waters rising up the cliffs and felt angry that I just had to hang around to drown. At the same moment, one of the waiters appeared with some kind of device that would have stopped the waters rising, but even though it was too late for the device to be of any use, he was really happy with what he had made.

And that was the dream. As I say, not a nightmare as I think of them, but just a horribly depressing dream of being in a situation where your options have all gone and you're alone waiting for the end, while the only other companion you have is someone overjoyed with something completely useless. I guess it's an anxiety dream of not making anything with my life and ending up alone.

Another strange thing that seems to be a recurring theme with my 'bad dreams' is a lot of them take place at or near the caravan site where I have so many happy memories from real life. If anyone can make sense of this then I'd love to know what it means!

Final thing about the dream is that it reminded me of this song,

Post Six - Marty's Hollow Oscar

Martin Scorsese is one of the most revered and recognisable directors currently working in Hollywood. Since his first film I Call First (1967) he has continued to develop and hone his craft to the point that he is now one of America’s leading auteurs through his recurring themes of family, religion, conflict and redemption.

Six years after his debut with I Call First, he and at that time a little known actor called Robert De Niro would both earn acclaim for Mean Streets.(1973) It’s a very personal film to Scorsese and also his favourite (Cooney,2006) as it was based on his experiences growing up in his beloved Bronx district of New York. By no means as much so as Alfred Hitchcock, Scorsese does sometimes give himself cameo parts in his movies; in Taxi Driver (1976) he is a passenger in Travis Bickle’s cab and in Mean Streets he delivers the opening voice-over, setting the tone not only for the film but also for a recurring mantra in his films;

“You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it.”

A religious man, Scorsese nearly became ordained as a Roman-Catholic priest before eventually deciding to make movies instead. The film industry is thankful.

In an interview with Total Film magazine in February 2005 while promoting The Aviator (2004) the topic of the Oscars inevitably reared its head. Despite the critical acclaim his films have continually received over the years as more and more people see them, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had not rewarded any of his films with the iconic golden statue, and nor would they in 2005 also.

Scorsese even went so far as to say, “I’ve given up on Oscar. The 70s were my time.” (Graham, 2005:96) The 1970s was an exciting time for films, with such directors as Steven Spielberg and George Lucas amongst a host of others also beginning to find their voice and excite audiences in new ways. This movement is referred to as ‘New Hollywood’ or ’The Hollywood New Wave’ as American directors were beginning to be influenced by films from Europe and Asia such as the Spaghetti Westerns from Italy and the French New Wave.

Although it was a burgeoning time for young and hungry directors to make their mark, in some ways this perhaps hindered more than helped Scorsese. With such a diverse range of film-makers consistently producing films of a high quality, the competition for Oscars was arguably as tough and competitive as it had ever been; with films such as Apocalypse Now, (Coppola, 1979) Jaws, (Spielberg, 1975) and All the President’s Men (Pakula, 1976) all missing out on the coveted prize.

When Scorsese finally won his own Oscar in 2007 for The Departed (2006) it was expected that this would be his year. Yet there was a lingering sense that this was not for the brilliance of the film but instead so that Scorsese would finally have an Oscar to call his own.

The films he was up against are all fine films; Babel, The Queen, Little Miss Sunshine and Letters from Iwo Jima. The diverse nature of the films seemed to cover all the bases the Academy looks for. Babel was a story of intertwining lives set in various locations across the world, The Queen was a biopic of Queen Elizabeth II, Little Miss Sunshine was a bitter-sweet feel good film and Letters From Iwo Jima was a war film that dealt with examining the myth of an iconic visual image from Japan in World War 2.

Then there was The Departed, a cat and mouse (or rather more aptly rat and mole) thriller that centred on one of Marty’s more familiar themes; that of identity. One factor that took away from Scorsese’s win, is that The Departed was a remake, the first one to win an Oscar. Despite his back catalogue of personal and adapted films, it seemed odd that a man who had been such a central figure in the rise of New Hollywood for his original creations would finally be rewarded for a film he transposed from Hong Kong. That film was Infernal Affairs. (Mak & Lau, 2002)

Infernal Affairs centres upon two conflicting figures; an undercover policeman in the mob and a mole in the police for the mob. This story was a worthy addition to the crime genre as it blurred the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, and as a result won a slew of accolades and awards in its native Hong Kong, including Best Picture and Best Director at the 22^nd Annual Hong Kong Film Awards. One could also read something into the fact that Hong Kong itself has had a conflicting nature having once been under British rule.

From the very start of Infernal Affairs, the theme of duality is expressed as the names of the actors and contributors at the start are all displayed in pairs. There is a scene early on in which the two characters meet in a hi-fi store where the undercover policeman Yan is working when Lau, the mole, enters and the two discuss various stereo systems. While listening to music on the system Yan sells Lau, Yan remarks that the alteration Lau made to the stereo has caused the music to almost become “transparent.” An interesting choice of words given the murkiness of both these characters.

The significance of the stereos becomes apparent at the end when it transpires the mob boss Sam has been recording all of his meetings with Lau which Yan now has possession of and consequently sends incriminating recordings to Lau’s apartment where his partner discovers them after playing them back on the stereo Yan sold him. This scene is also used in The Departed but lacks the subtlety and continuity of the original, although Scorsese’s films are often punctuated by music, notably songs by The Rolling Stones. Simon Firth notes that “Film scores are ... important in representing community ... in both film and audience.” (1986:68-9)

There are several cultural nuances that are not transposed, but are replaced by others. One example being the number 4 in Hong Kong has connotations with death, and several deaths occur on the fourth floor of buildings. In contrast, Scorsese used a form of chiaroscuro lighting throughout the film to indicate impending death, signified by X’s in the shot. Scorsese admits on the commentary that he saw this technique in Scarface (Hawks, 1932) and wanted to use it ever since.

Though The Departed includes more characters and covers more ground than the original, as a consequence it has a substantially longer running time which doesn’t let it flow as well as Infernal Affairs. Indeed the additional material slows the tempo down, whereas the original was perfectly streamlined. The Departed undoubtedly is a fine film, but when contrasted with the original it feels slightly inferior despite, or perhaps because of, all of the familiar Scorsese touches.

When comparing three of Scorsese’s films with the Oscar winners, a clue as to why he was over-looked becomes clear when one examines the budget and gross of the films;

(Note, the gross takings are only representative of America.)

1976

·         Taxi Driver                           Budget - $1.3 million.      Gross - $28million.

·         Rocky (Avildsen)              Budget - $1.1 million.      Gross - $117 million.

1980

·         Raging Bull                         Budget - $18 million.       Gross - $23 million.

·         Ordinary People (Redford)          Budget - $6 million.         Gross - $54 million.

1990

·         Goodfellas                          Budget - $25 million.       Gross - $46 million.

·         Dances With Wolves (Costner)   Budget - $19 million.       Gross - $132 million.

(Source – www.imdb.com)

Despite Taxi Driver making the best return of Scorsese’s three efforts, it pales in comparison to the astonishing return of Rocky. Considering the time period, it is of no great surprise that the audience would choose to see a film about an underdog over-coming the odds rather than go on a journey with a deluded and deranged ex-Vietnam veteran in the shape of Travis Bickle. What these films represent is the duality of society at the time; while the Vietnam war was still a major thought in people’s minds, the opportunity to see the embodiment of America in Rocky Balboa rise up and take as many punches as he can but not get knocked out is far more inspiring.

Both Ordinary People and Dances With Wolves were significant in the tale of Marty’s Oscar woes as their directors were marking their first transition from acting to directing. A cynic may contest that in these cases the Academy were just rewarding the directors for their past acting work rather than directorial craft.

Indeed, in numerous best film polls, both Raging Bull and Goodfellas are seasoned veterans, whereas Ordinary People and Dances With Wolves do not appear as regularly. In the American Film Institute’s top 100 films (2007 edition) all three of the aforementioned Scorsese films appeared, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas appearing at 4, 52 and 92 respectively, whilst only Rocky appeared at number 57.

(Full list can be found at http://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx)

One of Scorsese’s most endearing qualities is his humility. For all the fuss and furore people have made over his Oscar snubs over the years, he has a different mindset;

I love Hollywood but I also realise there are political moves. I mean, why do you think we make movies? For the golden statue? Forget it. We’re making movies for people to see them. (Graham, 2005:99)

Regardless of his ups and downs, wins and losses, trials and tribulations over the years, there is one thing all film fans should be thankful for; God bless Marty for not becoming a priest!

Word Count : 1,630

References

Frith, S. (1986) ‘Hearing secret harmonies’, in C. MacCabe (ed.) High Theory/Low Culture: Analysing Popular Television and Film, Manchester: Manchester University Press

COONEY, J. (2006) A Farewell to Arms. Total Film. November (11) p58

GRAHAM, J. (2005) The Total Film Interview : Martin Scorsese. Total Film. February (2) p96 - 101

Photos courtesy of

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/film/reviews/i/infernal-affairs.html (Screen shot from Infernal Affairs)

http://smalltalk.blogs.screenrush.co.uk/?blog=smalltalk&tool=&page=101&f=1 (Photo by Corbis Sygma)

http://bigscreenlittlescreen.net/2007/01/31/updated-stories/ (Screen shot from The Departed)

Post Five

[Rec] 2 (Released 28^th May 2010 in the UK)

Directed by Jaume Balaguero & Paca Plaza 

Every once in a while, a film comes along that strikes a chord with the audience, whether it is through word of mouth, clever marketing, marking a new step with the evolution of technologies or otherwise. In 2008, a Spanish film about a reporter following the routine of a fire crew in Barcelona terrified audiences enough that Hollywood remade it as Quarantine within a year of it hitting the screens. That film was [Rec].

It utilised the same technique that had garnered Cloverfield (2008) so much attention, that of events unfolding before a first person viewpoint. In Cloverfield the camera operator was named Hud, (an acronym for Heads Up Display) but where Cloverfield covered a city under attack by an unknown entity, [Rec] drew more upon the fear of being in an unfamiliar place where something unexplainable is happening before the operator and by proxy the audience’s eyes.

The final shot of [Rec] is where [Rec] 2 takes over. 

The reporter who has discovered a creature in the attic of the apartment complex is dragged into the darkness, her fate unknown, the camera filming only black. Instead, the film cuts to a specialised police force en route to the complex, knowing little about what has happened except that the governing body wishes to have video documentation of the events.

The abiding “rules” of a horror sequel are in effect here; more story development, more action and more monsters. These boxes are all bloodily ticked off.

Where the original followed one group as their numbers steadily dwindled, [Rec] 2 splits the film between the police and a group of teenagers who, curious with the commotion outside the building, decide to sneak in armed only with the arrogance of youth and a camcorder of their own. In the age of YouTube phenomenon’s and people documenting their own lives, the teenagers’ dreams of fame (“This is our chance!” screams one) quickly turn into a nightmare they cannot escape.   

Further expanding on the single camera concept of the original, the police force have miniature cameras on their helmets and guns, capitalising on the burgeoning first person shooter computer games. However in games of this type, the person is in complete control. In [Rec] 2 the viewer cannot escape; they are trapped not only in the overall situation but trapped also by the choices the characters make. The directors incorporate some post-production effects to enhance the experience; the battery power display would not be visible but adds to the tension and in one attack, the camera freezes on a horrific image, with the zombie screech distorted also.

The film is by no means without its flaws. The search for test tubes of blood from which to create an antidote is laboured and dragged out; tension rapidly turning into frustration as one tube goes up in flames in an unintended farcical fashion. While the revelation of a ‘health inspector’ actually being a priest appears in the trailer, when seen in the film, the reveal seems to be more at home in a B-movie; he removes his luminescent jacket to show his dog collar underneath, bearing resemblance to Clark Kent undressing before Superman takes flight.

Even prior to [Rec], the concept of a zombie outbreak being documented via camera had been used in George Romero’s Diary of the Dead (2007) but it would be unfair to accuse the directors of simply just “cashing in” on a gimmick. The alteration the [Rec] films offer to the zombie sub-genre goes beyond the hand-held camera, these zombies are also possessed. Perhaps this altering of the conventional zombie means more to the home Spanish market than the foreign markets, as a poll undertaken in 2010 showed 75% of the population identify themselves as Roman Catholic. 

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1545017.php/Number-of-Catholics-declines-in-Spain 

The idea of an inner demon being awoken and able to possess different bodies at will is unlikely to translate as well to more secularized cultures, but fits well with the Spanish culture.

Despite having a running time of only 85 minutes, once the opening half hour zips past the film-makers seem to be caught in two minds between trying to keep up the frenetic pace or pause and allow their characters to catch their breath. This results in a continuing stop-start pacing for the remainder of the film until the final fifteen minutes where the focus is solely on tension and suspense that sets up the 3^rd installment quite nicely.

By no means an Aliens (1986) or an Empire Strikes Back (1980), but a solid enough effort that does no harm to the first and a worthy addition to the evolution of the zombie horror sub-genre.

Overall Rating - B-

Word Count -789

Post Four

Three films which critique the ideology of the ‘American Dream’ through the use of drugs are Traffic (2000), Requiem for a Dream (2000) and Scarface (1983), with each film covering different ground.

Traffic has the widest scope of the three as it not only examines how drug use and abuse potentially damages the individual and those closest to them, it deals with the difficulties in keeping drugs coming up from South American countries at bay as well as the American Government’s stance and method of keeping them at bay. The explicit message throughout the film is however much America may want to keep illegal drugs out and suppressed, the sheer scale of the number of people and agencies with their conflicting interests makes the war on drugs a near impossible one. Michael Douglas’ character is the man charged with trying to win the war for the American Government, however his own daughter’s escalating problems force him to give up on his dream appointment in the White House to rescue his daughter before it goes too far.

 

Requiem for a Dream is not as firm in its stance as Traffic however. It instead implicitly acknowledges that yes, drug use CAN lead to despair, but that is not always the case. The 4 main characters are in their own ways chasing their own American Dream; either through yearning to appear on television in their favourite dress, setting up a clothing company or by becoming drug dealers. The more the characters chase their dream, the more they plunge into the grips of addiction believing they are in fact getting closer to their dreams. As is the case with Scarface, an implicit message with regards to Ellen Burstyn’s character is the damage that isolation coupled with drug abuse can do to the person, as shown in the following clip.

Untitled from nikita g on Vimeo.

Scarface is the story of Tony Montana, a young Cuban who rapidly ascends the drug ladder; starting as a hired killer until eventually making sufficient connections and power-plays to become Miami’s most powerful drug dealer. 

His infamous mantra, “The World is Yours!” fuels his lust for the things that will eventually destroy him; money, drugs and absolute power. One scene in particular highlights how isolated his cravings have made him. As he sits alone muttering to himself in a circular bath, his wife and best friend having both left after being insulted, the camera rises above him and despite the luxurious surroundings, he is all alone. 

Montana’s drug-fuelled paranoia and egocentrism leads to a bloody and brutal climax as he is gunned down in his own mansion. The world is no longer his, the dream has become a nightmare. Despite the fate of Montana, all things Scarface have been embraced in popular culture with the focus on the rise and not the fall.

Addiction to any kind of drug is likely to do damage. Drugs are not limited to physical forms. Karl Marx once remarked that religion is the opium of the masses, and certain film industry critics have transcribed this meaning to the Hollywood machine. Relentlessly producing films for the consumption of belief that the American Dream is attainable, the idea has hooked in many and so such films as listed highlight the fallacy of this ideology.

Word Count - 543

Post Three

The German film Lola Rennt, (Tykwer, 1998) goes someway to challenging Laura Mulvey’s argument that female characters in films are “positioned for visual impact and erotic pleasure”. While it is true that there is significant visual impact due to the bright red hair of Lola, the colour itself is used several times to symbolise different things; red lighting to symbolise love, the red phone symbolises danger and the hair represents her speed as she runs through the city. 

http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Symbolism-Run-Lola-Run/176872

Lola also shows different conflicting emotions at various stages too. In each of the 3 runs, at one point she screams in a shrill fashion only to regain her composure and calmly carry on after the initial release, preserving a sense of balance.

Mulvey’s point regarding female characters being punished for resembling a threat is also contested, as in the first run she has arguably taken a masculine stance by assisting her boyfriend Manni in robbing a supermarket, only to be shot by a policeman outside. 

However this seems to be due more to the theme of how little choices can have large ramifications (http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Run-Lola-Run/142094) as it is Manni who is killed in the second run. By the very end, we are left with a little cliff-hanger, as it is not revealed if Lola tells Manni about her success in a casino, which is now inconsequential to getting Manni out of trouble and instead leaves Lola in a position of power over him.

The 2000 Christopher Nolan film Memento, though told through a fractured narrative and having an independent feel to it cannot be considered as a Counter Cinema film. That said, it borrows elements from what is considered to be Counter Cinema, namely the narrative technique. This would seem to imply a certain pastiche element emerging more and more in Dominant Cinema and perhaps signals a blurring between the two ideologies, something not altogether too surprising in a post-modern environment, where certain gimmicks not usually seen in Dominant Cinema films are employed to garner attention to the product.

The narrative structure is used so that in each of the three acts of the film, the audience goes on a journey by knowing less than the main character, Leonard, at the start, to then knowing as much as Leonard in the second act, until ending up in a position where Leonard is placed at the start of the events about to unfold and we as the audience know where his journey goes. As the film goes back and forth to different parts in the story, it is a film that demands the audience retain their attention the whole way through. Perhaps knowing that this would prove a challenge to patrons, it can be argued that this is also a technique to make people require a second viewing and re-invest in the film, which seems to be a strategic marketing and consumer driven notion common with the Dominant Cinema process.

However there is an option with the Limited Edition DVD version to watch the film chronologically, which seems a bit of a compromise and arguably reduces the impact of the story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/trivia?tr0602401