The Double

I was surprised to see the bad reviews on IMDb. This is actually the most creative, enigmatic, philosophical and visually stunning film I've seen in a long time (and MUCH better than the disappointing Villeneuve's "Enemy"). Every scene is made in an unusual and unexpected way...enhancing the awkwardness of the characters and the story as a whole. From the very first 10 minutes I knew I was watching something really special.

"Submarine" was cute, but this is the film that definitely makes Ayoade one of the most promising directors nowadays. Can't wait to see what he's gonna do next.

This is the second feature film from Richard Ayoade after his quirky debut Submarine. Loosely based on the Dostoevsky novel the story follows Simon James - a quiet, timid character living in a bleak, soulless world where he goes unnoticed by his boss, the cute photocopier girl and even his own mother. Then one day James Simon appears, an exact double of Simon except he's better at everything in life - he has the cocky charm, he worms his way to the top in work and even gets the girls.

This is a dark, moody comedy peppered with some hilarious dialogue and genuine pathos although it doesn't quite fulfil its early expectations. The real highlight here is Ayoade's directorial style with real shades of Terry Gilliam in its surrealist approach to the world he has created. He cranks up the volume of everyday things like taps running or footsteps to build tension up in scenes and Jesse Einsberg is perfect casting for playing both roles.

A real curious piece but one which deserves an audience and suggests Ayoade is on track to become a real tour de force.

The Double is based on a story by the Russian writer, Dostoyevsky. And, I'll be blunt here—he is NOT for everyone! In fact, his stories are really not going to generate a lot of revenue when they are made into films because they are so strange and non-cinematic. Obviously the filmmakers really must have wanted to make this and they knew they'd never get rich off this one! This must be the reason Jesse Eisenberg decided to do this 'little' film. Interestingly, one of the executive producers* is Michael Caine—so he, too, must have really liked the material and wasn't too concerned about raking in the cash! As for the director, Richard Ayoade, he isn't that experienced with full-length films but certainly is someone to watch, as he really made the most of this strange tale by infusing it with some incredibly odd but satisfying touches—such as, for no reason I could discern, infusing the film with Japanese music! He also has a Fellini sort of love of strange supporting characters—all with very odd faces. It's all very weird…but it works! In addition, Ayoade wrote the screenplay based on the Dostoyevsky novel.

The story is about as bizarre as any I've seen lately. Simon (Eisenberg) is a very emotionally constricted and lonely young man. No one seems to notice him or care about him as he plods away at his job making no particular mark. In fact, he's literally a real 'nothing' as soon his work identification badge stops working and he is repeatedly hassled by the strange security guard who acts like he's never seen Simon before—though he's worked at the company for years. Then, out of the blue, a new employee comes to work—and he is the exact double for Simon. James (also Eisenberg) looks like Simon but no one seems to think this is unusual. What is really strange is that everyone seems to naturally love James and he's much the opposite of his lookalike. He's confident, aggressive and Simon eventually learns that he's also a bit of a user. While they are friends at first and James seems to be trying to help Simon, soon you see that James is trying to take over Simon's life…and lonely Simon is becoming more and more alienated and depressed. What is poor Simon to do?

In many ways, this story looks like it was infused with liberal doses of the movies 1984 as well as Brazil. While the film lacks the huge budget of Brazil, the dystopian look to this place gives it an otherworldly feel that seems oppressive, strange and gloomy. It also has an odd sense of humor—though it certainly is not a comedy. This actually works well with the story. But what is it all about? THAT is the thing about The Double—no one is exactly sure what it all means. Since the story was written long ago folks have been debating this. Is this simply Simon's descent into madness? Are there literally two of him, a yin and a yang? Or, is there some other meaning? Some will like the film's vagueness—others will hate that they aren't being spoon-fed the answers. The bottom line is that the story is difficult, strange and confusing— and these are NOT qualities you find in a Hollywood picture. As for me, I liked it and appreciated that the filmmakers didn't try to make a film like any other. And, the strangeness certainly wasn't a bad thing. Would I like more films like this? Perhaps I might—but not in large quantities. But, as a change of pace, I really enjoyed the film. Whether or not you'll enjoy this strange film, I cannot say—it all depends on your tolerance for the surreal.

*I am confused. How can a film have four executive producers? Usually, there is one producer in charge (the executive producer) and the others are simply called producers.

Here's the basic gist- this film is pretty ambitious on a visual level. It's reminiscent of the type of film Lynch would have made in his early days (yes, I got memories of Eraserhead for whatever reason). On a storyline-level, it's more straightforward. You can pretty much guess where the narrative is going and the strings it's going to pull. The film still works however, largely because of its cast. Jesse Eisenberg's performance here stands alongside his Oscar-nominated turn in The Social Network as the best acting he's ever given. It's truly superb work. Wasikowska is also quite effective. The score is effective and sort of haunting. Overall, I wish I'd liked it more, but it's definitely recommended.

I've now seen two films by the talented Ayodade – the other being his coming of age 'Submarine" - and had a very similar reaction though they are miles apart in style, story and theme.

First, this is a gifted film-maker, who doesn't want to play by the usual rules. Next, he knows how to get off to a great start, build a fascinating world, get you involved with his people, but third, he doesn't quite find ways to make his third acts pay off as interestingly (or powerfully or emotionally) as the first two-thirds of the film promise. In both films the focus drifts to less interesting elements or variations on the stories he's telling.

And last, he needs to lighten up on the too-obvious 'homage's to his cinematic touchstones. In "Submarine" it was (among others) Wes Anderson and "Rushmore". Here the overbearing influences (there are many) are led by Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". There were a large number of design and character choices – while effective - that came close enough that I couldn't help but sit there making comparisons ('Hey, there's Wallace Shawn doing Ian Holm'). And it starts to approach that fine line between inspiration and plagiarism.

That said, there's a lot to like here. The photography is often gorgeous. Jessie Eisenberg does a terrific job in a tough double role – a meek office worker who is suddenly faced with another employee who looks exactly like him. But the new guy has a brash, self-confident personality, everyone loves him, and no one else seems to notice the two are physically exactly alike, right down to their clothes.

This raises interesting questions about personality, perception and reality. Is "James Simon" (the cool one) merely a psychological projection of the nerd, "Simon James"? But if that's the case, why does everyone else interact with both, together and separately? Is it that Simon is the only one who thinks they look alike? i.e. is Simon projecting himself onto someone who – if we saw objectively – wouldn't even really look like him? Well, that would be an interesting idea, and a promising road for the film to explore, and it hints heavily at that possibility, only to simply drop and contradict it.

And that's part of why this is two-thirds of a great film, not a whole one. In the end things play out in a way that has been foreshadowed from early on, and suddenly the film feels less deep, less challenging, more an exercise in cinematic playfulness than an exploration of deeper themes both personal and societal. The head trip becomes too literal, the conclusions too simple for the complex surreal reality we've come to accept

On the plus side, the effects are terrific, and many of the best scenes in the film are Eisenberg talking to himself in one shot. (A hell of an acting challenge as well). And the film has a dark sense of humor that keeps the Kafkaesque world and 'big themes' from becoming ponderous, (Again, I just wish I had less often chuckled, but then thought 'hey, that just like the scene in 'Barton Fink…', or whatever).

In any case I look forward to whatever Ayoade does next, but I hope he will find a way to finish as strong as he starts, and to be brave enough to trust his own very good sense of style, and not borrow quite so much from others.