Skip to main content

Guest Review: George On Looper

James A. George, Eyewear film critic on  Looper



In my reviews for Eyewear I try to discuss plot as little as possible. I strongly believe that the purest and most fulfilling experience had in the cinema is when the viewer has avoided as much media concerning the film as possible in this world of constant in-your-face advertising. To discuss Looper at all the following must be revealed; there’s time travel and there’s telekinesis, both of which are revealed right at the start. The latter feels extremely tacked on so that the plot structure works but (along with one flying motorcycle) feels out of place in what is a thoroughly realised and believable future.

Time travel is messy, and one could dissect the plot and raise logistics questions but Looper pushes this aside by moving along rapidly and entering human consciousness into the mix. I can’t claim to be a sci-fi expert outside of the medium of film, but at least in film this is a fairly unexplored formula. The dark experiments of memory and physicality concerning time travel conducted by characters are unique and result in a lot of answers to “what if” questions you probably hadn’t but wish you had considered. Alongside all this sci-fi excellence are a haunting depiction of age, young and old, and an elegant study on destiny.

The script is beautifully written and the combination of direction, cinematography and editing breaks away from boring Hollywood convention. The violence is graphic but kept on a leash – skipped straight to the aftermath, or even highlighted in one long take or in distorted slow motion if necessary. The camera work is effective, moving only when it adds to the atmosphere. The framing is composed to explore the comedic undertones and simultaneous harsh reality of such a gritty story. The weight of the dystopian setting is kept at a distance as not to dilute the finely crafted film but is paid enough attention as evident in the cinemagoers I heard talking tirelessly about the film.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis play the same character, Joe, at different ages. Many don’t dwell on Bruce’s acting talents but this is a good example of his range and subtlety. I did wonder if there was some element of method acting when the two share the screen when Willis declares how strange it is to look into the eyes of his younger self; considering the eerie yet sweepingly realistic makeover teamed with Gordon-Levitt’s impeccable impersonation of Willis. The careful flash-forwards and flashbacks, the engaging montage sequence and a key exchange in a diner result in three-dimensional characters that could have otherwise been tough guys with cool guns. Emily Blunt as countryside farmer and mother, Sara, trying to avoid the polarized wealth of the city for the sake of her son is strong and compelling. None of the characters in this film are angelic and although there is a clear line drawn between the protagonists and antagonists, they’re all as enthralling as the other and right up to the startling conclusion I was itching to see all the paths play out and enjoy every moment en route.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".