Connect with us

Editorials

‘Nightcrawler’ – Revisiting Jake Gyllenhaal’s Career-Best Performance

Published

on

There’s a notion in popular culture that all sociopaths are serial-killing outsiders, but research has shown that most of the empathy-impaired are actually quite capable of blending into civilized society, though they usually gravitate towards certain lines of work that afford them little accountability and plenty of power. This makes a lot of sense when you consider that this relatively rare genetic trait would have long since died out if this wasn’t the case.

And while there are a handful of stories that offer a more realistic take on sociopaths (with even American Psycho depicting Patrick Bateman as a high-ranking office worker and possible CEO), I’d argue that one of the greatest cinematic psychos isn’t even from a horror movie. Naturally, I’m referring to the protagonist of the 2014 thriller Nightcrawler, a mean bit of journalistic satire that explores just how capitalism can reward anti-social behaviour.

Originally inspired by the real-world photojournalist Weegee, who infamously pioneered the practice of using a police scanner to reach crime scenes before they were publicly announced, the premise for the movie that would become Nightcrawler changed once veteran screenwriter Dan Gilroy came into contact with Los Angeles’ professional stringer scene.

Fascinated by how ratings-hungry TV stations encouraged an obsession with violent crime, Gilroy slowly developed a story about an antihero attempting to rise through the ranks of an unsavory profession. This led to the creation of Lou Bloom, a voracious capitalist with no real backstory to justify his cruel and calculating nature. The idea of a twisted success story centered around a character with no redeeming value ended up attracting Jake Gyllenhaal to the project, with the actor also becoming the film’s co-producer and taking a hands-on approach during shooting.

In the finished film, which ended up being helmed by Gilroy himself in his directorial debut, we follow criminal Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal) as he discovers the stringer profession and attempts to get rich by selling graphic footage of crimes and accidents to a local news station. With his recordings becoming more and more lucrative, Lou’s ruthless nature is let loose as he attempts to outdo his previous work – leading to a seriously disturbing yarn about sensationalist journalism and those who consume it.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Making over five times its budget at the box-office and wowing most critics at the time, Nightcrawler was an even bigger hit than the filmmakers could have hoped for – and I think this success is totally warranted. From the stylish neo-noir photography that leaves you stranded in the middle of late-night LA to an unconventional script that avoids the usual pitfalls of trying to apply conventional morality to an irredeemable person, it’s no wonder that this beautifully crafted film struck a chord with audiences.

Of course, none of that would be possible if it wasn’t for Jake Gyllenhaal’s career-best performance as a highly unlikable yet utterly captivating protagonist that we love to hate. From his snake-ish demeanor to his gaunt face and famished eyes, we simply can’t look away from Lou as he devolves into greedy savagery in pursuit of the American dream.

Gyllenhaal’s acting may be boosted by a clever script that treats its despicable subject like an eerily believable human being instead of a movie monster, but you’ve really got to appreciate the lengths that the actor went to in order to bring this character to life. Jake actually made a point of keeping himself sleep deprived and even losing massive amounts of weight in order to make Lou look and feel like a “hungry coyote,” with this scavenger motif becoming a running theme throughout the rest of the film.

Strangely enough, Jake was nominated for nearly every major acting award for this role except for the Oscars, with many fans attributing this snub to the film’s genre influences – something that the Academy Awards have historic problem with. Regardless, Lou Bloom will still go down in history as one of the most memorable anti-heroes in cinema history, with or without an award, and that alone should convince you to give this flick a try.


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Nightcrawler

Nightcrawler’s basic premise already invites comparisons to Mary Harron’s American Psycho, with both films chronicling the misadventures of terrible human beings who refuse to learn anything from the consequences of their actions. However, what makes this film stand out is just how grounded Lou’s “madness” is. In fact, I don’t think he’s mad at all, with his character’s extreme rationality being one of his defining characteristics and making him even creepier.

While Gilroy has repeatedly affirmed that Lou is by no means a psychopath, it’s hard to watch the film and imagine any kind of emotion behind his eyes other than avarice. In fact, there’s more than one moment where Lou comes off as a genuinely scary presence. From his intense monologue directed at his boss to the chilling final moments with his ex-assistant, the film makes it clear that nothing is off limits to this power-hungry predator.

That’s not even mentioning the flick’s extremely effective thriller elements, with Gilroy having originally envisioned the story as a more standard murder-mystery/conspiratorial investigation before peppering the narrative with other genre elements. While I agree with him and Gyllenhaal about the final version of the story being more of a dark comedy than anything else, there’s nothing funny about the oppressive atmosphere that purveys the entire experience here – or the real-world implications of Lou’s profession.

Nightcrawler may not be a bona fide scary movie, pulling from several different genres in its attempt to tell a nuanced story, but the flick is certainly unsettling in all the right ways. That’s why I think it’ll be a treat for horror fans who appreciate a bit of down-to-earth social commentary alongside their sociopaths. That being said, I’d still love to see a B-movie take on this story where a maniacal photojournalist ends up committing and staging murders just to get a perfect shot…


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading