Nothing is Real

 

This is my third entry in the Back in Black: Another Film Noir Blogathon hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and The Midnite Drive-In.

 

The film noir category of films may be firmly entrenched in most people's eyes in the 1940's and 50's, with it's ubiquitous femme fatales and private detectives and unscrupulous gangsters et. al. Additionally some more adventurous souls might include what certain people call "neo-noir", that genre which has all the elements of the classic movies, albeit in more modern settings and in color. 

I submit that there is a qualified third division of that theme in what has been referred to as "tech-noir", adding elements of science fiction into the mix. The header at the beginning of this piece features a poster from the film Blade Runner, which although it's setting is in the future, (or it was the future when the movie came out in 1982... although the setting year is now past {2019, in case you've never seen it}), has elements that could easily fit into any standard noir of the 40's. 

I submit that thematically film noir elements can appear in virtually any genre. I have yet to see a noir musical, but that doesn't mean it's not possible... Wikipedia lists as an adjunct to it's list of classic film noir movies both "noir westerns" and "noir comedies". As I have noted before, the first "noir" I actually watched, and the one that inspired my interest in the genre was a Steve Martin parody of the film noir genre, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (which I highly recommend...) 

 

 

 The Thirteenth Floor (1999): 

Firstly: Read the top part of that movie poster above: Question Reality. Remember that. Otherwise you are going to be scrambling for a grasp.

Secondly: I HIGHLY recommend you go watch this movie before reading another word. Trust me. There is no way I can talk about this movie without revealing stuff that is intricate to the whole story. If you thought The Matrix was complex you'll be just as lost without a road map reading this review. And spoiler alert applies for the entire damn review. Go watch it first. You've been warned.

The film opens in a familiar setting for anyone who is well acquainted with the classic film noir setting; a standard late 1930's world, in which an older man (Armin Mueller-Stahl), is out dining and dancing in typical 1930's fashion. 

 

 

 

 

 

He leaves a message with the bartender, Ashton (Vincent D'Onofrio), to be given when called for by someone named "Douglas Hall". 

 

But then reality shifts. It turns out that the 1930's world is part of a virtual reality simulation that had been created by Hannon Fuller (Mueller-Stahl, again) and Douglas Hall (Craig Bierko). Hannon had been testing out the VR game, without the knowledge of his partner.

 

 

It seems that there is something going on in the real world that Hannon wanted to clue his partner in on. But, wait! Just before Hannon can contact Douglas he is murdered. And guess who the prime suspect is...? If you said Douglas, well, congratulations! You are officially at least a film noir novice, if not an expert.

The police, especially Detective Larry McBain (Dennis Haysbert), think that Douglas is guilty. And to make matters more complicated, Douglas seems to have trouble remembering where he was when Hannon was murdered. Also evidence keeps pointing it's accusatory finger at him as, indeed, being the guilty party.

 

Appearing on the scene is Jane Fuller (Gretchen Mol), who claims to be the daughter of Hannon. Except that Douglas, who has known Hannon for years, was not aware that he even had a daughter. 

 

Douglas, who initially isn't quite sure whether he is innocent or guilty, decides to enter the VR world to look for clues. One of the first clues he actually discovers is that the virtual reality characters are more or less real, at least in their own minds. They are living lives independently of the interaction with the virtual reality players.

 

 

Lost yet? Go back up and read the first sentence of this blog entry...

 

 

As Douglas enters the world he finds that he is actually taking over a simulacrum of himself, only this character is known by his associates in the VR world as "John Ferguson" (also Bierko). And he meets up with the VR persona of Hannon who is a book dealer named "Grierson". He also meets the bartender, Ashton,, who turns out to be another simulacrum of an associate of his in the real world, Whitney (also D'Onofrio). But when he gives his name to Ashton, the bartender acts like he's never even heard the name "Douglas Bell", even though the older man, who was Hannon in the Grierson simulacrum had specifically named Douglas as the recipient of the note. 

See, in the 30's VR world, after Hannon/Grierson left, Ashton had opened the note and read it. We later find out that the note informed Douglas that reality is not what it seems. Ashton deduces the fact from the note that the '30's world is only a false world. And had even proven it to himself by going beyond the barriers in the simulation and discovering it for himself.

Only, now if you are paying attention, that would mean that Hannon was trying to tell Douglas that the virtual reality was just virtual reality. But then, why would Hannon try to tell Douglas something he already knew in the first place?

Go back up and read that first sentence again, if you've already forgotten it...

Because, as you've probably deduced by this point, the "real" world that Douglas knows is not so real as he had assumed.

 

 It turns out, of course, that "Douglas" did actually kill "Hannon", but it wasn't "Douglas" that killed "Hannon". There are even more plot twists yet to come.

Remember that first sentence now?

The Thirteenth Floor has elements of what I like about Philip K. Dick stories and films. Dick's overriding theme in many of his books is that reality is not always so cut and dried. Ever see Total Recall? Or A Scanner Darkly? Or Minority Report? The whole concept of what we think we know not necessarily being the real thing is a common theme in his books, and although this story was not written by Dick, I would be willing to bet that the author of the original novel this movie was based on, Simulacron-3 (by Daniel F. Galouye), was inspired by Dick's work. The original novel had a previous life in film in the form of a two-part German TV presentation "Welt am Draht" (1973), which I intend to give a watch sometime later next week. 

The film here barely made back it's original investment. It was budgeted at $16 million and only pulled in about $18 million in ticket sales. In the science fiction world of 1999, it competed for a Saturn Award as the Best Science Fiction film, but it had competition from the likes of Star Wars I- The Phantom Menace, Galaxy Quest and the eventual winner, The Matrix. It only has a 29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which I think is a crime. It's not near as dense and confusing as it's competitor, The Matrix, nor does it drag as much as that movie. The only downside to it, as far as I can tell, is that it takes a bit more effort to grasp on to the intricacies of the science part. As far as the entertainment value, well, if you approach this film from a viewpoint that it is a gritty futuristic version of the classic film noir, you won't be entirely disappointed.

One could say that the "reality" of the simulated 1990's in the film is much more exciting than the humdrum existence of what was real for the 1990's (or maybe we are all part of a VR world now, and this world is just a distraction for an even more humdrum existence of the people controlling us in the "real" world. (BTW: in the film the actual real world was the future of 2024, so I can say I'm a little disappointed that the VR simulation that was effectively "predicted" to occur by now hasn't come to fruition. Science fiction often does that... I'm still waiting for my flying car that should have been reality by 2015, according to the Back to the Future films.)

That wraps it up for now. Drive safely, folks. Or, maybe you don't really have to worry about doing that...

Quiggy