Blu Review: Following (1998)
Cast: Jeremy Theobald, Alex Haw, Lucy Russell
Director: Christopher Nolan
Country: USA
Genre: Crime | Drama | Mystery | Thriller
Official Trailer: Here
Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
Original aspect ratio: 1.37:1
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (48kHz, 24-bit)
English: LPCM Mono (48kHz, 24-bit)
Editor’s Notes: Following was released on Blu-ray and DVD by The Criterion Collection on December 11, 2012.
Following (1999) is Christopher Nolan’s directorial debut that established him as an innovative writer/director. The story is that of Bill (Jeremy Theobald), a writer wannabe who starts following people to develop characters and eventually becomes addicted to it. He meets Cobb (Alex Haw) who begins taking him on burglary trips, teaching him what to take and how to know the people that live there based on what they own. Bill meets ‘The Blonde’ (Lucy Russell), whose house he burgled with Cobb a couple days before, and begins a relationship. She’s really Cobb’s girl and Bill is being set up by Cobb. To go further would not be fair to the viewer.
The serpentine story is told in chopped-up order, similar to Nolan’s follow-up Memento (2000) but not backwards. He takes his film and shuffles it around like it is a stream of consciences narrative being told by someone (Bill) who cannot tell a story well. In a way, Nolan uses the editing style and the first person narration of Bill to set up that although he wants to be a writer, he cannot commit to it and has not developed his craft. So, when he is relating his story to the police, it’s all jumbled and we have to make sense of it as it goes along.
Like all of Nolan’s non-Batman films, the previously mentioned Memento (2000), Insomnia (2002), The Prestige (2006) and Inception (2010), the story of Following is a mystery the whole way through with Nolan dropping little clues here and there that link you to a previous scene.
Like all of Nolan’s non-Batman films, the previously mentioned Memento (2000), Insomnia (2002), The Prestige (2006) and Inception (2010), the story of Following is a mystery the whole way through with Nolan dropping little clues here and there that link you to a previous scene. There are times that he gets heavy-handed with this approach, focusing on an object in a way that screams “Remember me later! I’m important!” but the level of entertainment he provides allows one to overlook this aspect of his deliberate approach.
There are few directorial debuts as assured as Nolan’s Following. His style seems to have been fully formed from shot one. There are few other films that can boast this assuredness: Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941), Shadows (Cassavetes, 1959) and Blood Simple (Coen, 1984) to name a few of them. Nolan knows what he wants and he knows how he wants to convey it. Most first films are clumsy either due to lack of experience, lack of budget or lack of developed vision, but not Following. The film feels as though it is maybe the third or fourth film of an independent filmmaker that has been honing his craft for a few years, not the first venture outside of one short (Doodlebug, 1997) and no film school credits. He created a film that demands repeat viewings where most first films barely demand one, and that is only due in part to the editing style of the film.
It should be noted that the editing of the film is more than a cleaver gimmick. I say this because the Criterion Blu-Ray also has a linear cut of the film on the disk along with Nolan’s intended version. The story is more straightforward and is still interesting, which is to Nolan’s credit as a writer and shows that he doesn’t need a gimmick to get a good story told, but the linear version is not as entertaining or engaging. Most of the fun of the film is keeping track of the proceedings and getting your bearings each time there is a cut. To realize that you are either before or after actions previously witnessed draws the viewer into the film on a level that a linear edit does not allow. Sure, the characters are well drawn and the story is solid, but the out-of-sequence version is captivating for those reasons and the engagement of discovery. When a mystery is being told, it is important to let the audience think it can solve it before the primary subject. In the linear edit, there are clues but no real way to piece everything together until Bill does at the very end. In the release version, the audience can be one or two steps ahead of Bill or right along with him. He’s not really smart enough for the audience to fall behind, but that’s part of his…charm, I’ll say. I’m not saying that an out-of-sequence cut should be required for all mysteries either. The Maltese Falcon (Huston, 1941) would be a confused mess out of order and The Big Sleep (Hawkes, 1946) would make even less sense than it does now and would be nowhere near as good. However, when a story is clear and straightforward (leaving out Hammett and Chandler works), the story order can be manipulated in a way that makes it more captivating. Nolan is certainly not the first person to do this. Quentin Tarrantino did it with Reservoir Dogs in 1992 and Pulp Fiction in 1994 (I don’t count Jackie Brown (1997) as being out of order, as it retells events from different points of view but all in linear fashion), Jean-Luc Goddard did it in Breathless (1960) and continued to tell his stories that way until his death, and even Orson Welles used the device (though not in extreme a fashion) in Citizen Kane (1941). It’s a bold choice to make for a director because it asks the audience to be immediately engaged and be active participants in the film from the start and for Nolan, the choice pays off. Not only does the story become enhanced when we only get bits and pieces of information and we have to remember and recall so we understand the story from beginning to end, the characters become more fleshed out because of the editing. In the linear cut, the characters are kind of flat but when seen out of sequence, we are more sympathetic toward Bill, develop a deeper distrust of Cobb and are never really sure what to make of The Blond until it’s too late.
Nolan also shoots the film creatively. He used 16mm black and white film and shot primarily during the day, either outside or near windows so he didn’t have to spend much time or money on lighting. This gives the film a distinctive look of being partly well lit and partly in shadows.
Nolan also shoots the film creatively. He used 16mm black and white film and shot primarily during the day, either outside or near windows so he didn’t have to spend much time or money on lighting. This gives the film a distinctive look of being partly well lit and partly in shadows. The scenes that take place in the near-dark are lit with only one foot light and in one case makes you feel like you’re with Bill in a closed bar with maybe a streetlight just outside the window for light. The lighting helps to give shading and depth to the characters, as all of them are hiding something though some are hiding more than others, but Nolan does not go the traditional route and cast the most deceitful characters in darkness and the patsy in light, he does the exact opposite. Cobb has the most to hide and he is normally seen in full light, seldom if ever obscured by shadow. Bill has the least to hide and is normally in poor lighting conditions or only half lit. The Blond is alternately in and out of shadow because we never really know if she’s a patsy or devious.
All said and done, Nolan used Following (1999) to display his apparently natural talents as a filmmaker. Since then, he has arguably never made a misstep (I have never been a huge fan of Memento, though after seeing this film again I think I’ll be revisiting it and there are many detractors to his most recent film, The Dark Knight Rises (2012), though I am not one of them) and has become one of those few figures that people go to see because he is directing regardless of who is starring in his films, though he has gathered a mighty array of stars to be in what is now his stock company. Following is an assured, savvy, entertaining and intriguing film that improves with repeat viewings. I first saw the film sometime in 2002 or 2003 when it was first put out on DVD and was less than impressed by it. Now I am eager to see it again and continue to revisit it in the years to come.
Special Features:
Audio commentary by director Christopher Nolan
A 2010 interview with Christopher Nolan
Chronological edit of the film
Side-by-side comparison of the shooting script with three scenes from the film
Doodlebug (1997), a three-minute film by Nolan, starring Following’s Jeremy Theobald
Trailers
Booklet insert includes an essay by film critic and programmer Scott Foundas
Related Posts
-
http://twitter.com/Bryan_C_Murray Bryan Murray
-
acharlie
-
Doug Heller
Blu Review: Badlands (1973)
Review: Room 237 (2012)
SXSW Review: A Teacher (2013)
Review: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013)
Review: Spring Breakers (2012)
