Looper (5/5 Stars)

“Time Machine” by Simon Rich:

As soon as my time machine was finished, I traveled back to 1890, so I could kill Hitler before he was old enough to commit any of his horrible crimes. It wasn’t as gratifying as I thought it would be.

           

-       Oh my God. You killed a baby.

-       Yes…but the baby was Hitler

-       Who?

-       Hitler. It’s…complicated.

-       Officer? This man just killed a baby

“Looper” written and directed by Rian Johnson and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis, is the rare movie that is far more interesting than its title or even its marketing campaign lets on. It is being sold as a movie about time travel in which Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a mob hit man named Joe. Joe lives in the year 2044. Time travel has not been invented yet, but thirty years later, it will have been. The mob in the future of 2074 uses time travel as a convenient way to get rid of people. They send them back in time to 2044 where Joe is waiting to kill them instantly in the middle of a Kansas cornfield. Joe is called a Looper. The odd name comes from the understanding that in order to get rid of all the evidence, the mob will one day send the future version of him back in time for Joe to kill. This is called “closing the loop” and is akin to being fired. Old Joe gets sent back with a bag over his head and his hands tied behind his back; Young Joe shoots himself and collects his severance package, many gold bars strapped to Old Joe’s back.

There is a complication however when Old Joe comes back to be killed. He doesn’t have the bag over his head and he isn’t tied up. Young Joe recognizes himself (btw Joseph Gordon-Levitt with a prosthetic nose does a rather good Bruce Willis impression), hesitates, and Old Joe gets away. In the trailer they allude to a chase and this is about it. What this leaves out however are two very good questions and answers that make this seemingly normal run-of-the-mill action movie one of the best movies of the year. The first question is why does Young Joe want to kill Old Joe instead of just helping him escape? The second question is why has Old Joe come back to the past without a bag on his head or tied up? If he had gotten the best of his captors in the future, why would he send himself to the past at all if he knows that his younger self is waiting there to kill him?

The first question is answered within the first twenty minutes and so I will give away the entire thing. For demonstration purposes, a fellow Looper, played by Paul Dano, lets his old self get away. The mafia reacts by kidnapping Young Dano and holding his body parts for ransom. There is a truly terrifying scene where Old Dano is escaping on the outskirts of the city when all of sudden he experiences a scar being written on his arm. It states to be at a certain address in fifteen minutes. Then Old Dano’s fingers start disappearing just in case Old Dano didn’t get the point. Old Dano races back as he loses his fingers, toes, nose, feet, and arms. He gets to the address with basically just his torso. A door to a warehouse opens revealing the mob, a saw, quite a lot of blood, and what is left of Young Dano. Yes, young Joe is reasonably motivated to track down and kill Old Joe before the mob tracks him down and does the same thing to him.

The second question is what really sets this movie on a level of greatness. I won’t be giving away too much by simply stating the premise. Old Joe has come back on a Terminator-in-reverse style of mission. Armed with only a birth-date and a hospital, he is tracking down the five-year-old version of a future Hitler nicknamed “The Rainmaker.” His mission is to kill every child with that birth-date from that hospital in order to save his wife who was killed in the wake of many other untold deaths. Young Joe figures it out the plan and stakes out the last house on Old Joe's list. What a moral conundrum! Young Joe is a killer and drug addict and Old Joe is sober and reformed, but that does not allow one to forget the fact that Old Joe is going around killing children! How that turns out, well, you will just have to find out, but ask yourself this one question before you walk into the theater: How do you want it to turn out?

There is a tendency for movie critics to withhold praise from a movie when it reminds them of movies that they have already seen. For instance you can see the futuristic dystopia projected in “Looper” and be reminded of “Blade Runner.” Or you can see the parallels of the time travel mission in “The Terminator.” Or you can recognize the weird sensation of seeing an older version of yourself being killed from “Twelve Monkeys” (with Bruce Willis!) or if you wanted to go back even further, “Le Jetee.” In this way, critics tend to take away credit from movies that are made in our time in order to bolster the reputation of films of the old ones. I don’t want to detract from “Blade Runner,” “The Terminator,” or “Twelve Monkeys,” (I haven’t seen Le Jetee although lord knows it keeps getting mentioned when movies like these are made) but just because a movie that is made today that has some similarities it should not amplify the worth of a previous movie because now it is all “Influential.” In the same way the similarities should not detract from the current movie because it was all “Influenced." I guess what I’m saying is that “Looper” is better than “Blade Runner.” I’ve seen both and do not particularly care that the better one draws from the previous one. And there is plenty in “Looper” that is original enough that I would suggest that Rian Johnson get an Oscar Nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

Speaking of nominations, I think it is about time that Bruce Willis got one. This could be the year given he has had two great performances already, (I recommend the nomination for “Moonrise Kingdom.”) And Joseph Gordon-Levitt although perhaps not yet earning such a distinction, is fast becoming noticeable for his DiCaprio-esque ability to show up in a multitude of good to great movies. Look at IMDB and see where he will show up this year. “The Dark Knight Rises,” “Premium Rush,” “Looper,” “Lincoln,” “Django Unchained.” That is pretty impressive.  What can definitely be said about both of these actors is that they truly know how to share a screen. “Looper” is definitely an ensemble picture that engages the audience with multiple well-rounded characters. Paul Dano has an unforgettable part that lasts only about ten minutes. Then there is Jeff Daniels as “Abe” the mob boss from the future who instills a comedic been-there done-that fatalism to his persona. Finally there is boy Hitler, a five year old played by Pierce Gagnon, who can, dare I say, really act.

If there was an award for “Most Understated Title for  a Great Movie,” I think “Looper” would be a lock for that one as well.

The Master (4/5 Stars)

Good luck trying to brainwash a crazy person.

Suppose you were a charlatan, somebody who falsely claims to have special skills or expertise. Now suppose you were a very ambitious charlatan, not just an ordinary con man peddling nonexistent charity or selling used cars as new, but someone who with the gall to claim access to the divine. Let’s go even further now and head into L. Ron Hubbard territory. Suppose you had the chutzpah to start your own religion and suppose you had the personality and intelligence to actually pull it off on a grand scale. We have gotten this far so we must assume that one of two things is true. One: you are correct about the secrets of the universe. Or two: You’ve got to be some sort of megalomaniacal psychotic sociopath.

This is an important thing to keep in mind as one watches “The Master,” mainly because the sociopath in question, Lancaster Dodd played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman in another brilliant characterization, is such a nice, friendly, and warm fellow. He likes singing. He likes dancing and he loves giving speeches. It is easy to forget that he spends the vast majority of his day lying, cheating, and stealing from those who follow him. Lancaster Dodd, modeled after the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard, is an evil person. His entire demeanor is a well-rehearsed act played to disarm the senses, gain trust, and to ultimately control his followers. I believe the common term is brainwashing, although how Dodd works is more like hypnosis (don’t tell him that!). The to remember about someone under hypnosis is not that they do not know the truth. They just don’t care. They have intentionally submitted themselves to a fantasy.

In that view it does not actually matter what is the fantasy. A cursory study of the beliefs of Scientology reveal an absolutely ridiculous plethora of science fiction looniness. It boggles the rational mind. Given that Hubbard was not insane, why would he base a religion on something so unbelievable? Think about it this way: What if the ridiculousness of it all was simply a byproduct of an enormous ego. Perhaps the next step in self-glorification from creating a religion that men will follow blindly, is creating an absolutely absurd religion that men will follow blindly. The absurdity grotesquely emphasizes the personal magnetism of the leader. If the Pope can get priests and nuns to give up family and sex for a life of service to God, if Napoleon could get men to die for ribbons and medals and country, what does it say about Hubbard if he can get bank accounts for thetans and other like rubbish? Perhaps that is what makes him truly a Master of men.

The religion in this movie does not actually encompass any of the tenets of “Scientology.” It doesn’t need to; the actual belief system is arbitrary in front of the central conflict between the master's cult of personality and his would-be followers. In particular, one relationship between Dodd and ex-Navy man Freddie Quell, played in erratic fashion by real life crazy man Joaquin Phoenix, is the central driving force of the story.

Freddie Quell is an animal. Possibly suffering PTSD from his service in WWII or simply just crazy, he is an aimless drifter with no friends, family, or money. He starts fights with innocent bystanders, mixes death-defying cocktails with intoxicants such as rocket fuel and paint thinner, and thinks sex in an uninhibited fashion. The man is a walking id. Lancaster Dodd has many bullshit reasons of why he would seek the company of Freddie Quell as a protégé, plenty going under the guise of “helping him.” What this relationship really amounts to however is a vanity project. Lancaster Dodd has successfully brainwashed old rich ladies, several ex-wives, and a small legion of believers, and now he is aiming for bigger game. He wants to be able to control a man who is uncontrollable. Freddie Quell could be the Great White Whale for charlatans. Here is a man who will not join the following for all the usual reasons. He has no family or friends in the group. He does not seek influence over other people. He has no interest in making money (unlike for instance the oilman submitting to a baptism in order to build his pipeline in Paul Thomas Anderson’s last movie, “There Will Be Blood.”) And lastly, he is certainly not affected by peer pressure in any conventional sense. If Freddie Quell joins the following and stays put it will be because he truly believes and that in turn glorifies the controlling power of the Master. Quell may be deranged but he has no lying in him, (which is perhaps what makes him so deranged.)

Boy does Lancaster Dodd throw the book at Quell and gives the man everything he has got. Every scene they have together is a mind-battle between two heavyweights. Perhaps one of the best scenes involves a Dianetics inspired interrogation where Dodd peppers Quell with a multitude of intensely private questions. Notice how Dodd gains the upper hand. Mind control works like ju-jitsu. You can’t win by getting the other person to fight against himself.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s writing is on a level far above the average movie. A character like Lancaster Dodd is so hard to pull off. Take a scene that takes place in a high society party. Dodd is explaining how people have had past lives and are repeatedly incarnated. When they go through “processing” they can recall their past lives and gain insight into their present and future lives. “Processing” can even solve certain types of Leukemia. A man at the party intends to confront Dodd on this point. I think we can all agree that “processing” cannot cure Leukemia and that professing such a belief is absurd if not downright odious. Would it surprise you that Lancaster Dodd wins this argument and wins it handily, leaving the man speechless and embarrassed? It is not movie magic with unrealistic dialogue happening here. The time-travel man wins the debate against the skeptic because he is such an intelligent speaker that he is able to run logical circles around ordinary men on even the most absurd of topics.

Combine that with another strange musical score from Jonny Greenwood (who also did “There Will Be Blood”) and you have one of the most fiercely original movies of the year. Here is to hoping it does not take Paul Thomas Anderson another five years to make his next movie.