What I have to say about that? My fingers hurt.
The movie was very early Nolan as well. Constant jumps in scenes with no seeming rhyme or reason that makes the viewer question the continuity of the film. It’s the older cheaper version of Nolan’s “Memento” basically in terms of narrative structure.
Oh before I continue, I took notes, as your twitter timelines will indicate. Sorry about that, but I thought it would be fun and informative and I hope it was for you too. My notes aren’t what purists would say are “correct” or “accurate,” but they’re there. Here’s the link to all of those “Following” tweets in one place for easy access.
What did I learn from this? Well I can tweet 67 times in the span of an hour and not include pictures of food or my dogs. Also my grammar and spelling seem to devolve into that of a twelve year old. The sacrifices I make for art.
It may also be one of the best ways to watch a cerebral movie like this. By thinking aloud to an unseen audience, it allowed me to really think about what I was seeing. Look through that storify, I laid out some great shit in there.
Anyway back to “Following.”
It’s in the noir genre so don’t expect anything life affirming… or good to happen to any protagonist. Especially the writer. Never the writer. Oh and about the writer. Yes, he will be referred to as the writer throughout because he doesn’t have a name. Message much, Nolan?
The writer is just an combination of traits that every writer portrayed in media is. He’s lonely, not clean, lives in a shitty somewhere, has trouble finding that inspirational muse, and he’s desperate. Nolan doesn’t even bother to give him a name because he doesn’t need one, he’s writer, and that is all he is, the movie doesn’t pretend otherwise, though the writer tries to. Nonsense such as names were skipped entirely for known archetypes.
I won’t tackle everything I saw in my notes.
Okay. One thing.
When noir lady asked that question. I did too. When he explains to her using that excuse it was something I asked myself. Does being a writer or self-identifying as a writer mean anything? When the writer asks for people’s stories, they give him one, because he’s identified as a writer.
There are a few ways to take this so I’ll take one.
Yes, if only because he was allowed access to their lives because writer. The writer has found meaning in their story, which becomes his story once he’s apart of it. He takes their story and make it his own even though they take him. He had meaning for that brief adventure.
Whether that was a critique of this particular archetype’s character or of the archetype itself is something I can’t figure out an hour after watching it, but it was interesting to see the pieces.
You can check out the film on Netflix instant streaming and watch it for yourself. If you want to tell me what you thought and saw, the comments are right below.
Thanks for reading the tweets and my post.