A review of “INSOMNIA” by James Harleman

- Starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams
- Directed by Christopher Nolan
- 1 hour 58 minutes, rated R

The previews make it appear fairly simple; Al Pacino plays grizzled veteran L.A. cop, Frank Dormer, sent with his partner up to the frigid north of Alaska to assist local authorities with a murder quite uncommon to the region. Since the town is located in an uncomfortable geographic location on our planet-where the sun remains up for months-the detective finds he is unable to sleep out of his element. Add the obligatory dose of paranoia, someone who is probably the killer calling the detective at his motel room, and local authorities that aren’t particularly pleased with Dormer’s “help”, and this might seem like a typical murder-mystery thriller. except that it isn’t, and the film’s surprising complexity makes it a wonder to behold.

Owing much of it’s rich plot to the original Norwegian version of the film by screenwriters Nikolaj Frobenius and Erik Skjoldbjærg, director Christopher Nolan (Memento) chose and executed his second major film production well. What looked to be predictable and banal unfolds as a rich tapestry of hypocrisy and compromising positions. The metaphorical baggage that Dormer and his partner bring with them is complex, and the resulting situation between cop and killer turns a typically black and white scenario into shades of grey, that become increasingly harder to discern as the characters lose their grip on their environment and themselves.

It’s preferable to see this film without any more plot specifics, so I’ll try to leave the review spoiler-free; though not as cinematically unique or experimental as “Memento”, “Insomnia” involves revelations and story progression that is best served with a side of ignorance. These surprises are not pre-packaged A-bomb endings like those of “The Sixth Sense” or “Fight Club”, but rather the nuanced unraveling of our usual character assumptions. Between a dirty-white landscape, washed-out vistas, and encroaching fog, the viewer experiences the weight of the climate and sleeplessness Dormer faces.

The acting is superlative; Robin Williams, phoning in his performances for the last decade, reminds us how impressed we were with “Dead Poet’s Society” and “Awakenings”, eyes wide over the fact that he could do more than comedy, more than chewing scenery and mugging for the camera. I think I have always preferred his dramatic work, and now-after some time out in wasted space-”Mork” has finally come back to earth; Williams has found his serious voice once again. Pacino delivers consistent quality, and yet Nolan’s direction seems to flesh out his conflicted character’s mind with even more alacrity than usual. Hilary Swank, with another role that could easily have been a stereotype, breathes life and depth into the small-town cop, who holds both professional fascination and trepidation regarding the veteran Dormer.

What is truly fascinating, however, is the territory the film explores in relation to mankind’s desperate struggle to determine right and wrong. In “Memento”, Nolan dealt with mankind’s perceptual limitations in dealing with reality. With “Insomnia, he gets even more personal, unveiling the ease with which we may all be corrupted. People-even Christians-often point at obvious sins, public sinners, and “criminals”. forgetting that, as scripture tells us, that to merely transgress one law is to be guilty of breaking them all. The whitest lie makes us as guilty as the most heinous killer. A character in the film tells Dormer that we just “do what we feel is right at the time, and then try to live with it.” By the end of the film, this method of circumstantial “morality-without-foundation” is shown to be errant, inconsistent. and ultimately destructive. Our consciences do give us a general knowledge of right and wrong, yet we are tainted beings, unable to live according to our conscience or our man-made rules. Something is missing, and Pascal’s “God-shaped hole” is as present in this film as a sucking chest wound.

While, like many contemporary movies, “Insomnia” rails against the notion that situations are black and white-that we are all caught, by our own hypocrisy, in variant shades of grey, this film notes that this human condition is a dismal, bleak, and wholly unsatisfying way to live one’s life. It offers no efficacious solution, and leaves the viewer wondering just how to get through life without becoming compromised, and growing old with guilt and regret.

A review of “Hannibal”
by James Harleman

Hannibal Lecter Anthony Hopkins
Clarice Starling Julianne Moore
Mason Verger Gary Oldman
Paul Krendler Ray Liotta
Giancarlo Giannini Rinaldo Pazzi

Directed by Ridley Scott

Based on the novel by Thomas Harris

“You can look at my face. yet you shied away when I said the name of God.”

Gary Oldman-completely unrecognizable as the horribly disfigured, Lecter-obsessed billionaire Mason Verger-stares up at Julianne Moore”s character (originally played by Jodie Foster in “The Silence of the Lambs”) and points out the strong woman”s vulnerability in one of the film”s most poignant lines. (Yes-that”s Gary Oldman, though he”s not even credited in the film. Once again, his voice and appearance have transformed; most people won”t even realize he”s in the film.)

Guilt and morality are key issues in the third-yes, third-film featuring the insidious cannibal killer, and this time around Ridley Scott has crafted a thought-provoking, subtle ensemble piece… most of which will likely be missed by biased viewers.

Having escaped the asylum in “The Silence of the Lambs,” Dr Lecter successfully vanished and now, ten years later, he has been taken off the FBI”s 10 most wanted list. After a FBI bust becomes public relations nightmare, Clarice Starling finds herself a convenient scapegoat and manipulated by her bigoted “ally”, Paul Krendler (Liotta). Confined to a life-support system, Mason Verger-Lector”s only surviving victim-uses his money, power, and Starling”s situation to seek his revenge, scheming to draw Lecter out of his hiding place by using the one person he truly seemed to care for.

Lecter, laying low in Florence, Italy, has secured a prominent position for himself; however, when Inspector Pazzi (a wonderfully nuanced performance by Giancarlo Giannini) discovers Hannibal” true identity, hides it from his colleagues, and contacts Verger to secure the substantial reward… the game is afoot. Though Lecter likely holds the most screen time from a technical standpoint, there almost seems to be no central character in the film. Unlike “Silence”, which centered heavily on Clarice, “Hannibal” is a fluid study of intersecting characters; we are shown each person”s unique desires and motivations, how it affects them, and where it leads them as they revolve around Lecter. Though each enters the frame for a different reason, with a different agenda, they share the same, noticeable lack of morality. which leaves the viewer with little sympathy for them. Whether it”s Krendler”s lecherousness and ambition, Pazzi”s greed, or Verger”s vengeance, their skeletons emerge for our scrutiny. Starling”s character is muddled as well; when the pillars of morality crumble and the department turns against her, even she has lost her moral compass. “This changes everything,” she tells her superiors, “this changes ME.” Her reasons for seeking Lecter are questionable as well; although she never violates her principles, we can see she wrestles with a strange fascination for the Doctor. And capturing him is the key to saving her career. However, the film never shines the light brightly on Clarice”s troubled soul-she remains the ethical enigma-and so she becomes the mixed emotional window through which the viewer observes the moral movements of the film.

It is this muddled and disgusting lack of conscience in the entire cast that has an unsettling effect on the viewer. Though wholly captivating, most of the cast intersecting with Lector seem so petty, selfish, unlikable or lukewarm that viewers finds themselves WISHING the nearly-inhuman Hannibal would dispatch them as punishment for their sin. It is frightening to feel this way. We discover that the more trivial, common moral flaws are less palatable to us than the actions of the serial killer and cannibal, and this wounds our ego. since these are flaws we all share. At least Hannibal isn”t a hypocrite; his worldview is consistent. The two-faced Krendler and pious Verger reek of hypocrisy, and Giannini”s guilt, fear, and emotional turmoil echoes our own struggle between conscience and desire. Hannibal-with his pure freedom in depravity-delivers a warped justice to characters who embody all our worst traits. Moreover, the humanistic moral pillar, represented by Clarice, is powerless to stop it. She is truly lost-the system is corrupt, the culture is corrupt, the “have”s” are pathetic, the “have-not”s” are greedy, and her alleged allies are brainless back-stabbers. As Verger points out (with perhaps his only intelligent observation) Starling is afraid of faith in God; consequently, her foundation does not rest on an objective, unchanging Deity; by the film”s end her foundation has collapsed, and she is adrift. an empty vessel at the mercy of the tides.

Scott is in top directing form again (Gladiator had good action, but some shots and effects were poorly executed). From the opening in Verger”s lavish living room to the streets of Florence, the cinematography is beautiful. Despite a poorly cut preview that seems to show Hopkins chewing scenery and mugging for the camera, he is wonderfully subdued in the film”s context, a calm yet predatory gentleman, which makes his. “misconduct”. even more unsettling. Julianne Moore is a beautifully cultivated extension of Jodie Foster”s critically acclaimed portrayal. Many critics and feminists will disagree, for political reasons. because ten years have not been kind to the stalwart Starling. She exhibits a lack of vigor, strength and resolve, as time and environment have eroded the qualities that made viewers unanimously declare her a hero in “Silence of the Lambs”. I think Moore”s portrayal is not only good, but honest as well.

It”s unfortunate the filmmakers second-guessed Harris” portrayal of Starling in the novel upon which this film is based. Perhaps Harris did sell out, or depicted it poorly-I have not yet read the book-but I suspect again that the criticism has more to do with political-correctness and humanism than with good storytelling. In the book, Lecter subverts Clarice”s will, wooing and winning her over to his worldview at the end. Since Jodie Foster”s portrayal of the character elevated Starling to an icon of stable psychological order and female empowerment, most dare not consider that such a person might be so easily upended. We don”t want to believe that Hannibal”s depravity exists within us, or that we are so closely related. We don”t want to admit that it only takes a nudge to bridge the gap between his sins and ours. or that both are deserving of the same punishment. As Kevin Spacey pointed out to the common man in the film “Seven”: “It”s “comfortable” for you to label me as insane.”

If the film “Hannibal” disturbs you. it may be for good reason.