So many of the reviews I've seen for this focus on the fact that The Double seems to reference so many other films - one particularly scathing one dismissed it as a trawl through the director's DVD collection. I always feel that how I feel about a film has to be based on whether it looks good, makes sense and stands up to viewing in it's own terms, not in relation to other films that I may or may not have seen. It's unfair to dismiss this simply because of the obvious nods to Brazil, or the Fight Club-esque aspects of it. (I was only 7 when Eraserhead came out, and saw it as a young teen, so can't even judge whether that comparison is valid) The real question is 'Does it stand up as a film in it's own terms, notwithstanding these references'? The design and visual feel of the film are quite striking - yes, I've seen it before, but that doesn't stop it being effective in it's own right. You could almost say that the monotone palette/low lighting are becoming shorthand for some kind of dystopic view of the world. I can live with that.
The pacing and direction of the film are also pretty strong. I particularly enjoyed the use of sound tricks such as footsteps not stopping when people stopped walking - it doesn't jar, it more adds to the sense of overbearing lack of control for the main character, unable to stop or control events around him. The photography was great, I really enjoyed 'watching' the film. I've got no problem with The Double from that side.
However, where it does fall flat for me, and in this crucial respect does not stand up as a solid film in it's own right, is that the story just does not seem to be robust enough to withstand much scrutiny. With the other films that have been used as comparisons to this, the story catches you off guard, but when re-examined, still holds a logical consistency, or at least maintains the capacity for offering an interpretation that makes sense in that respect. But for The Double, there is a big gap in the film's internal coherence, so that on leaving the cinema I was just left thinking 'No, but for that to work, then this would need to have happened, and why did they behave like this when that happened, and ...' etc.
It's not just that there may be some ambiguity to it, which I'm fine with - more problematic is that whatever kind of interpretation that you look for doesn't seem to fit throughout the film, and different interpretations, different narratives are needed at different points of the film. If you try to chase through to the end with any one interpretation, you are left hanging.
So for me, the criticism that focuses on the referential nature of the film are missing the more crucial weakness that it presents us with. The direction, style and tone are all great, and it was a treat to watch, but the lack of attention to the presentation of the story, to offer it in a way where even unanswered questions could possibly have a logical albeit uncertain answer, undermines what was otherwise a good film.
It's a real pity. This gets a 6 from me - it could have got 8 or 9 if the whole film had matched the quality of the directing, but the weakness in the storyline drags it right back down into mediocrity.
The pacing and direction of the film are also pretty strong. I particularly enjoyed the use of sound tricks such as footsteps not stopping when people stopped walking - it doesn't jar, it more adds to the sense of overbearing lack of control for the main character, unable to stop or control events around him. The photography was great, I really enjoyed 'watching' the film. I've got no problem with The Double from that side.
However, where it does fall flat for me, and in this crucial respect does not stand up as a solid film in it's own right, is that the story just does not seem to be robust enough to withstand much scrutiny. With the other films that have been used as comparisons to this, the story catches you off guard, but when re-examined, still holds a logical consistency, or at least maintains the capacity for offering an interpretation that makes sense in that respect. But for The Double, there is a big gap in the film's internal coherence, so that on leaving the cinema I was just left thinking 'No, but for that to work, then this would need to have happened, and why did they behave like this when that happened, and ...' etc.
It's not just that there may be some ambiguity to it, which I'm fine with - more problematic is that whatever kind of interpretation that you look for doesn't seem to fit throughout the film, and different interpretations, different narratives are needed at different points of the film. If you try to chase through to the end with any one interpretation, you are left hanging.
So for me, the criticism that focuses on the referential nature of the film are missing the more crucial weakness that it presents us with. The direction, style and tone are all great, and it was a treat to watch, but the lack of attention to the presentation of the story, to offer it in a way where even unanswered questions could possibly have a logical albeit uncertain answer, undermines what was otherwise a good film.
It's a real pity. This gets a 6 from me - it could have got 8 or 9 if the whole film had matched the quality of the directing, but the weakness in the storyline drags it right back down into mediocrity.