Nocturnal Animals (Tom Ford, 2016)

[TMDaines]

I loved Nocturnal Animals. It takes skill to weave three timelines and is very successfully done here. The vagaries between the story and the story within a story - and the idea of whether the two actually have any genuine connection or meaning - are the film's strength. Nothing feels crowbarred and no parallels are spoon fed. The viewer is allowed to interpret as they please, which I'm sure will disappoint some mainstream audiences.

More peak Gyllenhaal that will probably go unrecognised. The film is absolutely beautiful too.

[mfunk9786]

There were no fat people in A Single Man. In fact, I mentioned this when I reviewed it here:

there are zero unattractive people in the film's universe (check out that classroom!)

And I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that Tom Ford had insulated his universe from the unpleasantness of reality, creating a sterile, dull, drab, bourgeoisie portrait of love, or whatever love would look like in a catalog, and passed it off as deeply emotional work. Almost as if he'd read this sentence fragment of mine, he opens Nocturnal Animals, one of the most viscerally exciting and stimulating films of the last several years, with a provocative credits sequence unlike any I've seen before, and works backwards to prove that the film he had made earned the right to use it. Joke's on me, it seems - almost as mean of a trick as all of the contemptible visual and plot tricks going on within this ice-cold, arsenic-filled hors d'oeuvre.

Ford does not waste any resources at his disposal: the actors in this film are merely catalog models as far as he seems to be concerned, save for the fact that they're some of the best performers alive today. The settings don't seem to carry any personal meaning or heft to the filmmaker, nor do the existential concerns raised by any levels of the story. But that sort of question of an artist's connections and motivations behind their work is exactly what Nocturnal Animals is about. A novel or television episode or feature film that might mean the world to you might hardly spark more than a vague confabulation in the artist responsible for its creation, and something that you would assume to be a hollow, soulless, shoddy fabrication could have depths of personal meaning the likes of which you could not begin to speculate. So, my own assumptions about Tom Ford's motivations behind adapting this particular novel are irrelevant. What I can say is that the film he's emerged with is an absolutely thrilling piece of work, something that made me want to stand up out of my seat and whoop and holler out of sheer exhilaration. Imagine if Stanley Kubrick had been on a toxic cocktail of methamphetamine and mescaline during a Larry Clark-esque seat-of-his-pants shooting schedule to make Eyes Wide Shut, and you're most of the way there. But it's in the folding together of the pulpy novel, real life pain, and vividly three-dimensional performances that Nocturnal Animals emerges as perhaps the most exciting theatrical experience of the year. Not since Drive have I felt more like I was being conned by a film but willing to sign over my better instincts and intelligence to it because of the sheer exhilaration of it all. It's impersonal, it'll put just as many viewers at a distance as it will enrapture, but god DAMN, it worked for me - I'm so glad it didn't take any longer than two films for Tom Ford to realize what he's good at. Hopefully the next catalog is more of this blood red provocation and he continues to leave the soft blues of A Single Man far in the rear view.

P.S. A++ acting work all around here - Michael Shannon is a national treasure, and it will be painful, as TMDaines mentions, to see Jake Gyllenhaal ignored once again for an astoundingly good performance. And you're all fawning over the wrong Amy Adams movie, and definitely over the wrong Amy Adams role.

Go see this thing.

[The Narrator Returns]

I loved this cruel little movie too. It even got me to like Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who I found genuinely, totally frightening in this when I had previously found him only infuriatingly bland. And if the cast can't get recognition for this at various awards shows, Seamus McGarvey absolutely should, because he outdoes himself here.

[oh yeah]

Imagine if Stanley Kubrick had been on a toxic cocktail of methamphetamine and mescaline during a Larry Clark-esque seat-of-his-pants shooting schedule to make Eyes Wide Shut, and you're most of the way there.

Well, I'm sold!

[Brian C]

I'll add my voice to the enthusiasm here.

That said, I've never been an admirer of Gyllenhaal, and I wonder if Ford doesn't agree with me to some extent, because this movie felt like kind of a cruel joke on him. Compared to Adams, Gyllenhaal seems like a child; she comes across as incomparably more mature, wiser, with a presence more commanding and assertive. In short, just plain out of his league. And in the scenes they share during their characters' courtship, she seems directed to play more girly and immature, as if she's sinking to his level. It's a sure way to signal that this relationship is doomed, and not only that, that we as an audience are supposed to want it to fail on some level, because Susan plainly can't be her true self in this partnership.

Indeed, Edward's novel seems like an apology for his weakness and emotional immaturity ... qualities that, as it happens, I associate with Gyllenhaal as an actor. And Ford takes the extra step of casting Gyllenhaal as Tony, which just seals the joke. It's funny that mfunk mentions Eyes Wide Shut, because Kubrick did almost the exact same thing to Tom Cruise in that movie.

[Lars Von Truffaut]

Wow. Absolutely stunning work from everyone involved. The trailer left me ill prepared for the masterpiece that I took in last night. (More on this later...)

mfunk-- Your write-up is right on the money. I second it and would be standing and applauding right next to you. While there have been some really great films this year, this and maybe The Lobster have been the only ones to get me to sit up in my chair, and at times the hairs on the back of my neck with me. I think that "impersonal" style you mentioned meshes well with the unbelievably personal character study of Susan and Edward. It's pretty amazing to me that:

SpoilerShow

we never actually see Edward, in the end. By following Susan's remembrances, the novel dramatizations, and ultimately her loneliness we are given the necessary outfit to dress a question mark.

I don't know why I continue to be "surprised" by Jake Gyllenhaal - one of the better actors out there today, especially when working in thrillers. I think part of the reason that I continue to not give myself over to him completely, despite great work in Zodiac, Prisoners, Enemy, and Nightcrawler is due in part to the inclusion of "big moments" in trailers. I remember being a little turned off by an actorly mirror scene in the trailer for Nightcrawler. It made his performance seem especially hammy and almost kept me from seeing it in theaters. Eventually, I decided against waiting to rent it and was rewarded for it. Within the context of the movie, it didn't seem out of place at all! Gyllenhaal often seems to play softer, quieter, even wounded at times, and then comes a key moment in a film where he ratchets up the intensity to 11. To see a quick glimpse of this in a vacuum looks preposterous.

[MoonlitKnight]

^^Indeed, I was intrigued that

SpoilerShow

we never actually see 'present-day' Edward; only 'past' Edward and his literary doppelgänger.

Might there be more to this than meets the eye? Or am I overthinking?

While I admittedly haven't seen that many films in which Gyllenhaal has appeared, he's always seemed like a more-than-capable actor... but I agree I've usually had trouble investing myself in most of the characters he's played. This this and maybe his "Jarhead" character have been the exceptions to the rule.

As for Amy Adams, between this and "Arrival" (two of the best films I've seen so far this awards season), she seems likely to get another Oscar nod... but will she actually win or inch even closer to Peter O'Toole's record 0 for 8 mark?

Oh, and I was NOT prepared for those opening credits.

[Black Hat]

Oh, and I was NOT prepared for those opening credits.

Believe it or not I totally forgot about them until your post, outside of lifting from Lynch, what was the point of it?

That's also a segue into how I felt about the film, what was the point of this? Legitimate question to fans of the film why am I supposed to care about Amy Adams? She's by all measures a pretty horrible, shallow human being and I'm supposed to feel bad she's so miserable?

SpoilerShow

The only reason that now she gives any semblance of a shit about other humans is because her tool of a husband is cheating on her.

For me in order for a film of this sort to work it has to strike a chord emotionally. Where was the emotional jumping off point here?

I never saw Tom Ford's other film but based on this shoddy work he's not a particularly competent director. The Western portions of the film didn't work, but Edward being a bad writer was perhaps the point? Who makes half a film just to show us someone is bad at something? Michael Shannon at least in this film has graduated into the 'I'm Michael Shannon' part of his career, barely putting in an effort. The melodrama of Adams reading the book reeked of cheese garnering laughs of unintentional comedy worthy of golden era MGM. At times I thought this film was more than anything an opportunity for Ford to use the camera to leer at Gyllenhaal.

Ford seems to be a director working without his own template and instead is working with his perception of what template people like Lynch/Haynes/Fincher etc, etc. use. Problem with this is you end up with a film that perhaps looks right in spots, but ultimately lays a pretty potent stink bomb lacking in any substantive artistic vision.

[mfunk9786]

That is such a spicy meatball that I don't even know where to begin

[Black Hat]

It's funny I didn't realize how much I hated this movie until I began writing my post.

The one discussion point I'd like for yourself or others to get into was Amy Adams' character, what on earth did you guys find interesting about her?

I'd also add that I suppose to his credit Ford did pull off a nifty trick as when the film ended the people in the row behind me said

SpoilerShow

"oh my god I feel so bad for her" where as I could barely contain my laughter

then again this was Manhattan's Upper West Side where people like her character are admired and multiply like gremlins.

[D50]

SpoilerShow

we never actually see 'present-day' Edward; only 'past' Edward and his literary doppelgänger.

SpoilerShow

You do see through his eyes (or is it eye - I picture him wearing an eye patch with facial scars) that night in the beginning as he follows her, stops at the just closed gate - probably dropping off the manuscript.

[MoonlitKnight]

Oh, and I was NOT prepared for those opening credits.

Believe it or not I totally forgot about them until your post, outside of lifting from Lynch, what was the point of it?

I'm assuming this was the 'junk' performance art exhibition she referred to later in the film (and was disappointed her husband didn't attend), as we also see a shot of her sitting there alone after it's over.

[therewillbeblus]

While I enjoyed aspects of this, particularly the look of the film, it ultimately felt empty of any real meaning. My major issue was the ending in which

SpoilerShow

Edward stands Susan up at dinner as the ultimate "revenge" after proving himself as a writer and getting her to come face-to-face with her own empty life/unhappiness, as well as what she has done to him. To me, this only really works if Edward knows how miserable Susan's life is (how her husband is unfaithful, she feels detached from her work life, etc.). However, I don't see how Edward would have any insight into how dissatisfied Susan has become. For all he knows she could be happily married, she has a daughter, and could be living the dream as a wealthy woman in the art world. If that was the case, standing her up at dinner would not affect her nearly as much as it did, which is what our reaction as the audience hinges on, but only works from the omniscient eye of the theatre-goer. I don't believe that her email to him saying that the novel deeply affected her and her desire to meet up is enough to give him the impression that she is so unhappy and seeks catharsis for her mistreatment of him, it could just be a kind email from a happy woman who wants to meet up with an ex and be cordial, in which case his failure to show would be meaningless and the act only holds weight if he has the insight into her life that we do as audience members.

If anyone can support a different point of view on my problems with the ending I would love to hear it, as this was really a deal-breaker for me and I wanted to like the film more.

[Roscoe]

I never saw Tom Ford's other film but based on this shoddy work he's not a particularly competent director.

I saw and loathed Ford's previous film, the appalling A SINGLE MAN, and based on that shoddy airless self-pitying over-styled dead-eyed bullshit work alone he's an utterly inept director whose work I'll waste no further time on, but you know, this one has Jake Gyllenhaal so I might FF through it when it hits HBO.

[Brian C]

I saw and loathed Ford's previous film, the appalling A SINGLE MAN, and based on that shoddy airless self-pitying over-styled dead-eyed bullshit work alone he's an utterly inept director whose work I'll waste no further time on, but you know, this one has Jake Gyllenhaal so I might FF through it when it hits HBO.

What a shame that you decided to save 2 hours of your life by not watching this film, only to waste part of it by hysterically patting yourself on the back for it.

[D50]

If anyone can support a different point of view on my problems with the ending I would love to hear it, as this was really a deal-breaker for me and I wanted to like the film more.

SpoilerShow

He knows of her life as he included two of the opening scene cheerleaders who were sitting outside the roadhouse.

[John Cope]

I have yet to see this and likely won't till Blu. I have seen Ford's first film which I liked very much but I've also read the original novel upon which this film is based (Austin Wright's Tony and Susan) and consider it a tremendous literary accomplishment so for that reason I'm somewhat wary of any adaptation. Anyway, obviously I can't speak to the film directly but I did want to address some of what's been said here in respect to how it applies to the original novel. Maybe there will be something enlightening in that.

From what I understand, the film seems to follow the book fairly closely in terms of its overall structure and narrative arc. It does not sound like a radical reinvention. And maybe the level of fidelity we get from Ford here is about the best we can hope for given the source material which is determinedly interior throughout. It doesn't surprise me that the Texas scenes (Ohio in the book) are the most viscerally affecting for people as they were in the original novel, too. They're really the main "action" as it were; once again, so much of the rest is interior, including the rest of Tony's story. But I would definitely dispute the idea that Edward is presented as a "bad" writer, at least within Wright's book, as his novel is the bulk of what we read and it's tremendously well written; when I say that Tony and Susan is a genuinely great literary accomplishment I'm referring in large part to Edward's novel as it is presented to us. Actually, his writing style is not radically dissimilar from Wright's own in the surrounding passages, the framing narrative involving Susan reading Edward's novel; these are more or less a continuation of that same voice and method of presentation.

The characters are significantly older in Wright's book than as represented by the actors in the film. There is much more distance in terms of time having passed that is implied between their marriage and this renewed encounter. I like that a lot and miss the prospect of it in the film as, in the book, it really does provide great weight and pathos. It's surprising to me to hear about these reactions to the character of Susan as Wright's Susan doesn't engender any easy response; she's almost a cipher, very remote and analytical in her reading and, crucially it seems to me, any implied threat in Edward's novel is played way down in Wright's book. Also, as far as I can recall, Susan has no career such as the one which Ford provides her; she's presented instead as more of a domestic presence with multiple kids and a marriage that is stable but not particularly fulfilling anymore (she's been married to her second husband for quite awhile now and I believe his infidelity is suggested but is not overly emphasized). The ending sounds pretty much the same but isn't emotionally devastating one way or the other in the book and doesn't seem meant to be so. And this is where the book excels, I think, and what I worry will be lost in translation even as Ford apparently ramps up surface level Roegian symbolic patterns.

The book is a profound, slow and careful study of its themes, immaculately written, exceedingly interior and, not so much ambiguous as irreducible. It's simply too well written and too much of a thorough reflection to be so. This is why I bristled initially at comments about the implied threat to Susan in Edward's book. If there is such a threat it exists on a very rarefied level and is only recognized in passing by Susan herself (and by extension Wright who treats it dismissively). To reduce this to a thriller would be a trite diminishment but it would be equally so to draw simplistic conclusions about either character or for that matter the characters in Edward's novel. Wright's book is not on the nose in the way it treats its subjects but circuitous, cumulative. So when the ending arrives it is a resolution of sorts for Susan and us but it really "resolves" nothing. It's not a threat or revenge narrative as much as a focused meditation for her and for us.

It may be that novels like this that are so interior or so much about the language itself present a grand challenge and defy easy adaptation. I always think of Bertolucci's Sheltering Sky as perhaps the best way to approach a work like that. His film was superficial by comparison but it was as though he understood that it inevitably would have to be so short of carrying over great portions of the language of the book and he made that effectively work for him (David Thomson's Film Comment article on this is one of my favorites as it really explores that angle in depth). The best I really expect from Ford's film is that he manages to achieve a similar sort of success and some measure of the sublimity of his superb source text.

[Black Hat]

John thanks very much for your insights into the book. I'm very curious to hear your reaction when you see the film adaptation.

But I would definitely dispute the idea that Edward is presented as a "bad" writer, at least within Wright's book, as his novel is the bulk of what we read and it's tremendously well written; when I say that Tony and Susan is a genuinely great literary accomplishment I'm referring in large part to Edward's novel as it is presented to us.

For me the western/crime/revenge story was pretty hokey and entirely predictable which is why I thought what I did. The other aspect is that the Jake G character is so weak that it's frankly tiresome if not annoying, entirely uninteresting.

The characters are significantly older in Wright's book than as represented by the actors in the film. There is much more distance in terms of time having passed that is implied between their marriage and this renewed encounter. I like that a lot and miss the prospect of it in the film as, in the book, it really does provide great weight and pathos. It's surprising to me to hear about these reactions to the character of Susan as Wright's Susan doesn't engender any easy response; she's almost a cipher, very remote and analytical in her reading and, crucially it seems to me, any implied threat in Edward's novel is played way down in Wright's book. Also, as far as I can recall, Susan has no career such as the one which Ford provides her; she's presented instead as more of a domestic presence with multiple kids and a marriage that is stable but not particularly fulfilling anymore (she's been married to her second husband for quite awhile now and I believe his infidelity is suggested but is not overly emphasized). The ending sounds pretty much the same but isn't emotionally devastating one way or the other in the book and doesn't seem meant to be so.

I'm glad to hear this because one aspect of the film that didn't work was I felt Edward and Susan were too young. I would also say that at least within the film the story is very much Susan's. It's structured in a way that you as an audience member should be having an emotional response to her of I think pity and sadness. Your reveal that in the book she is domesticated is interesting because I'm now curious as to why Ford would change that? What he gave us was a surface level look at a bourgeois careerist who at one point had a soul and is now having a midlife crisis.

It may be that novels like this that are so interior or so much about the language itself present a grand challenge and defy easy adaptation. I always think of Bertolucci's Sheltering Sky as perhaps the best way to approach a work like that. His film was superficial by comparison but it was as though he understood that it inevitably would have to be so short of carrying over great portions of the language of the book and he made that effectively work for him (David Thomson's Film Comment article on this is one of my favorites as it really explores that angle in depth). The best I really expect from Ford's film is that he manages to achieve a similar sort of success and some measure of the sublimity of his superb source text.

You may be right about this as based on what you've said about the book it appears as if Ford didn't even bother to explore the interior of his characters instead going for something he wanted for himself. Problem with that approach is that you have to be saying something for it to work and Ford says nothing, thus why the film is cold. For a film that's dealing with so much inner turmoil it can't be that distant.

Lastly one aspect which was very important to the film that your post didn't mention was Susan's relationship to her mother. Was this a cliché Ford threw in there or was it prevalent in the novel?

[John Cope]

Lastly one aspect which was very important to the film that your post didn't mention was Susan's relationship to her mother. Was this a cliché Ford threw in there or was it prevalent in the novel?

Actually, as far as I can remember that relationship barely features in the book. The line that is omnipresent in trailers in which her mother tells her that what she is drawn to about Edward will eventually be what turns her against him is in the book but it's a passing detail in a larger paragraph, no more or less prominent than that. I could be forgetting something but that whole relationship is under emphasized. Susan's parents are far more prominent figures at the very beginning when she and Edward are teens, before they go off to college, but even then their presence is pretty minimal and understated.

[TMDaines]

I have yet to see this and likely won't till Blu. I have seen Ford's first film which I liked very much but I've also read the original novel upon which this film is based (Austin Wright's Tony and Susan) and consider it a tremendous literary accomplishment so for that reason I'm somewhat wary of any adaptation. Anyway, obviously I can't speak to the film directly but I did want to address some of what's been said here in respect to how it applies to the original novel. Maybe there will be something enlightening in that.

Only seen the film and not read the book, but I feel the film captures the spirit of the book well based on your description. As I mentioned in the opening post, we aren't sure what to make of everything. We aren't sure of whether things are supposed to be connected, or whether we are to draw parallels. It's all quiet vague and for the audience to interpret.

[mfunk9786]

It's also totally besides the fact whether Gyllenhaal's character is a "good writer" - we're (wisely) not seeing the actual text of the book, nor are we likely seeing the entirety of the plot details of the book. We're getting what I would assume are highlights of the story, enough to piece the whole thing together, and the film is about how it affects Adams, not about grading him on his writing abilities.

[Black Hat]

I don't see how it can be besides the fact when the story is driven by him being compelled years later to send her his finally finished novel to a person who didn't believe in him who also just happens to be his ex-wife. This act certainly indicates a level of resentment if not bitterness towards her.*

SpoilerShow

Especially given how she left him because of his perceived lack of ambition, having grown tired of him pursuing his dream, her wanting him to grow up and find a 'real job'. This conflict between whose world view is correct was the most interesting aspect of the film which was unfortunately left mostly unexplored.

*

SpoilerShow

This is further proven by him standing her up at the end. It's also possible given how it was shot that he was in fact there watching her drink alone (no accident that it's shown her glass being refilled multiple times) which shows an even deeper level of resentment on his part if not outright creepiness.

I disagree that you can't form a judgment on the quality of novel* based on what's shown in the film, but where I do agree is that the film is her about her reaction to it. This begs the question then, what was her reaction to it?

SpoilerShow

In my view we don't get any of that. What we get is a self centered, arrogant, cold hearted person feeling nostalgic over a past relationship because in her current one she's getting a taste of her own medicine.

*You yourself acknowledged we're getting the highlights of the book.

[mfunk9786]

Why, in your view, is Adams' character an irredeemably horrible person because of an infidelity she committed in a relationship years before? We see her guilt and her disappointment with who she's become playing out on screen - should she have been flogged with something heavy for 2 hours to make this film acceptable to you? Even if you don't buy her being redeemable, great movies can (and have) been made about bad people.

[Black Hat]

I certainly do not recall basing my disdain for Susan on her infidelity. My dislike for her as I alluded to previously comes from having her presented, manipulatively at that, as a sympathetic figure. Without being given anything internal to go on besides the superficial I have no patience for someone of her class background, having made the unkind choices she had made both personally and professionally (as evidenced by the ridiculous work place scenes with Jena Malone) feeling sad because the world has been unkind to them. Her guilt and disappointment is purely motivated by even more selfishness, i.e. her realization that her husband is a duplicitous, cold, arrogant philanderer of the most shameless kind. Moreover someone like Susan wouldn't even have bothered to open Edward's manuscript if she was in any way satisfied with her life. As a result I feel she and by extension Ford's film was completely disingenuous.

What would have made this film palatable id if any of these emotions were explored with any substance. A film like this year's Knight of Cups, which I defended on this forum against its many detractors, is similar in that the protagonist also hails from a place of privilege. The difference here is the reasons for Rick's sad emptiness are profoundly explored. I suppose in a sense the deeply personal nature of Malick's film alienates the majority, where as the surface level bullshit of Ford's most find a comfortable space.

[mfunk9786]

Adams' character should try fucking models and being followed by some whispery narration, maybe she could get out of this slump the way Bale did