Time-Travel Neo-Noir “Looper” Raises Many Intriguing Questions
Arguably the most famous Diner Table Conversation in cinematic history occurred in Michael Mann’s Heat (1995) in which Al Pacino’s Cop and Robert DeNiro’s Robber sat across from one another, chatted, ominously but peacefully, and realized that not only were they weirdly in need of one another, they were, in a way, the same person. So say that instead you took that scene and twisted it and made it so the two men sitting across from one another were not simply like each other but were each other?
This moment arrives at the half point of writer/director Rian Johnson’s Looper and is made possible on account of – what else? – time travel. The year is 2044. Time travel has not been invented yet, but it will be. 30 years in the future it has been outlawed and utilized only by organized crime who send palookas back in time to a designated place to be blasted to smithereens by “loopers.” This is the introduction afforded us by the film’s protagonist, Joe, a looper himself, recited in a world-weary groan by Joseph Gorden-Levitt, dazzling in a performance that evokes Phillip Marlowe by way of H.G. Wells.
Rian Johnson’s two previous films were exercises in high style. Brick, also influenced by noir, was a hard-boiled detective story recast in a high school complete with a heightened cadence all its own. The Brothers Bloom, believe it or not, was even more stylized, a grifting film that commented on itself as it went along. Looper, make no mistake, packs references to other films, older and newer alike, but its look and feel, while convincingly conjuring up a futuristic wasteland of a prairie city, is less hyper than his previous efforts. It’s rougher, not as impressed with itself, suggesting that Johnson is growing as a filmmaker while also granting Looper a decided authenticity despite its premise.
Joe explains his profession fails to attract forward thinkers and this is because the possibility always looms of your future self being sent back and, thus, having to off him (you). No arguments, no hesitations, and then collect your golden paycheck and live comfortably for the next 30 years before your already-determined day of reckoning. And sure enough, Joe comes face to face with his future self, played by a glowering Bruce Willis. Old Joe, as he must, gets away, and so now the bad guys are on the trail of Old Joe and Young Joe and Young Joe is also on the trail of Old Joe and that is how, eventually, two versions of the same man find themselves face to face in a rural coffee shop.
Don’t bother yourself with studying the faces of the respective men to see if they really match up. (Maybe one day in the future when time travel is invented, young actors’ older selves can beam back to play the same part in flash forward to cure all picking of nits?) And for that matter, don’t bother yourself with the gaps of logic, of which I’m certain there are plenty, regarding the time travel. As Old Joe himself says at the coffee shop when Young Joe begins going down that road, “We’ll be sitting here all day making diagrams with straws.” Looper isn’t nuts and bolts science, it’s futuristic noir that steadily drum beats its way to action.
In fact, I suspect the primary reason Willis was cast was for the requisite moment when with the company of a few guns he goes, well, all Bruce Willis-y. Let’s not give away too much here but suffice it to say Old Joe is a man with a plan to prevent his younger self from ever having to off him in the first place, a plan that strikes a demonstrative Terminator note and involves, ahem, Sara (Emily Blunt) and her young son (Pierce Gagnon) with Reese – er, Joe, turning up to protect them, unwillingly but then, ultimately, willingly.
If it’s true that the unexamined life is not worth living, Looper presents endless opportunity to make Joe’s life worth living, to load up on existential exploration, to examine his life before he lives it. But instead, upon leaving the coffee shop, Johnson’s screenplay goes in a different direction, opting for the notion of self-sacrifice but bringing it home via third act conclusion that maybe feels just a bit too much like a Rubik’s Cube clicking neatly into shape.
Looper may not leave you breathless, but it will leave you with a lot to chew on. Perhaps at a nearby coffee shop?
15 Comments
I was really intrigued by Looper. It took me a little while to process everything and figure out what I thought, and my opinion’s only grown in the past week. You’re definitely right to bring up The Terminator, which connects to Looper in a lot of ways. There are several moments that are very familiar, especially the scene you hinted at when Bruce Willis becomes Arnold at the police station. His character grows more desperate as the movie goes along, and it takes a much different twist in the second half than I expected. Nice post!
Thanks, Dan. I was intrigued by the way the movie did go in a different direction as it went along. In fact, I honestly forgot that Emily Blunt was even in the movie until she showed up. And then I was like, “Oh yeah. That’s right. She’s in this.”
Nicely written review Nick but it looks like you were looking for Rian Johnson to explore different avenues of the time travel premise than the movie did.
While it would certainly have been extremely fascinating and possibly made for an even better movie, all time travel movies are bound to leave many stones unturned because of the endless what-if question that come with the sub-genre.
Personally, I felt that Looper packed a lot for a two-hour movie (it really felt longer than it did and not in a bad way). I liked it more than you did but at the same time, I didn’t try to nitpick or find holes in the science fiction setting of the film.
It’s weird because I do kind of admire how he took the movie – like I said in the comment to Dan – in a different direction in the second half of the film. And I don’t think it would have bothered me as much that he ignored deeper exploration into the notion of the 30 years Joe lived if he hadn’t RAISED those questions.
It’s definitely an entertaining movie but it just seemed – to me, anyway – that the way he decided to go made the story more neat and tidy but less emotionally resonant.
When Bruce Willis says they could talk about the time travel and make diagrams all afternoon with straws, I think Johnson does tell us not to sweat the details and simply enjoy the ride.
To me, Looper was particularly enjoyable because Johnson made sure to make us care for the characters, unlike the vast majority of movies these days. Let’s not forget that the protagonist is a thug who kills people for a living or that Bruce Willis kills 9-year old boys pretty much just to save himself. And yet, we cared about these people.
The dialogue was sharp and witty. The pacing as noted before, was expertly layed down with character moments peppered throughout the chase. The performances were great across the board. It’s pretty amazing to watch someone like Joseph Gordon Levitt go from something like (500) Days of Summer to this. Emily Blunt not making a single emotional misstep makes me wonder why she hasn’t really broke through with better roles yet. And Bruce Willis running around like he is still 40?
We could talk all afternoon about all the roads not taken but isn’t it what all good time travel movie leave you pondering long after the credits have rolled?
No, no! I agree with you (mostly). I don’t think I worded my comment properly.
It didn’t bother me – at all – that it didn’t address the details of the actual time travel process. Personally I couldn’t care less about that sort of thing. I was trying to say that I felt it could have been even more interesting if it had delved into the fact that the young version of Joe had come face to face with his future, with knowing how his life has turned out before he’s actually lived it. That could be just endlessly fascinating! But, at the same time, maybe it would have been too tricky to pull off and maybe it is just better to leave all that unsaid.
And I agree with you about Emily Blunt. I’ve seen her in FOUR movies this year and she’s been dynamite in every one.
Not seen Brothers Bloom, yet, but was impressed by Johnson’s work in Brick and Breaking Bad. He doesn’t disappoint here. I really loved the future world he created. It wasn’t overly elaborate, but it was what it was.
Like Castor, I thought the film felt a lot longer than 2 hours but in a good way. I was left with questions but, again, not in a bad way. Kept me thinking and I didn’t really feel like picking through the holes that time travel films inevitably leave.
Rian Johnson is involved in Breaking Bad? I did not know that. A man of many talents.
He directed two Breaking Bad episodes. “Fly” during Season 3 and “Fifty One” in Season 5. Awesome fact indeed.
Thanks for the heads up I recall that fly episode vividly. I have yet to see season 5 but look forward to checking it out even more now.
Saw it yesterday, and it was awesome. Also, i think this may be the first role where Blunt really impressed. Not that i think she was a bad actress before, but i just wasn’t in love with her like a lot of bloggers.
Yea same here Julian. Blunt had a fun little part in The Devil Wears Prada and she was solid in everything from Sunshine Cleaning to The Adjustment Bureau but Looper is really where I realized “why doesn’t she star in her own movies yet???”
I would also concur with those sentiments, though it changed for me earlier this year. I thought she was spectacular in “Your Sister’s Sister.”
This is an easy best-of-2012 pick for me; I wouldn’t write a bulky review of a film and then follow it up with an even bulkier essay if I didn’t love it, after all. I think what Johnson does with time travel here is smart– he skirts the issue entirely. Time travel, as it concerns us and as it concerns Young Joe and the 2044 characters, is basically magic. That Johnson not only refuses to try and explain it, but actively derides that very notion in his script, is applause-worthy.
And it leaves him room to mull over the important things, like the cycles of violence that define the entire narrative– from Joe’s childhood and adult life, which have both been dictated by others (since he takes such a passive role in his lief), to Cid’s present and future, to Old Joe’s mission of…justice? Vengeance? He’s a grieving husband who is incapable of looking past his own bereaved anger, which makes him something of a hypocrite. But I love that, since it just adds more and more to the film in terms of layers.
Nice write up Nick, I enjoyed all the questions the film raised. Also loved Bruce Willis in this film. I could watch that Chinese gangster montage all day. So far Looper is easily in my top ten for the year.
Trackbacks