Tag Archives: Christopher Nolan

Fargo Third Season Finale

The third season of Fargo ends with a conversation between protagonist Gloria Burgle and antagonist V.M. Varga in a Homeland Security detention facility. Gloria expects that Varga will soon be arrested and charged with a series of white collar crimes, whereas Varga is confident that his release is imminent. Gloria appeals to hard facts–what really happened–while Varga describes narrative’s power to shape facts through (mis)perception.

This season of Fargo feels much more attuned to Christopher Nolan’s work than the previous two seasons. Varga’s pitch forks-and-torches monologue evokes Christopher Nolan’s Bane and his mantra–that “perception of reality becomes reality”–is reminiscent of Nolan’s Memento. Varga succeeds in covering up his crimes throughout the season by creating the appearance of patterns that aren’t there, such as a serial killer with two M.O.s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsxWdygViYg

This theme is especially relevant in the context of the “fake news” controversy that has afflicted us since the 2016 presidential election. Varga acts under the assumption that whatever story you put out there becomes true, which is precisely the effect that fake news or propaganda more generally has on the populace. When Varga claims that the lunar landing was faked, he is observing that the event is only “true” insofar as the image of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon was disseminated through television.

The final conversation between Gloria and Varga builds on one of Fargo’s critical moves. The show inverts the central trope of detective fiction, so that instead of the audience following the detective as he or she solves the crime, we watch the characters try to piece together events which we have already witnessed. The third season especially is a sustained exercise in dramatic irony. We already know every detail of the numerous murders throughout the season, as we watch the police try to makes sense of the strange circumstances and seemingly contradictory evidence. Like the show’s first two seasons and the original Coen Brothers film which inspired it, Fargo’s third season suggests that what is true often strains credulity. Human motivations are so tangled and people behave so irrationally that the truth is generally implausible, grotesque, and bizarre.

Although Gloria has managed to uncover Varga’s crimes, even her knowledge isn’t completely accurate. Gloria believes that Varga ordered the murder of Emmit Stussy, although we know that Varga wasn’t involved. Although Gloria closely resembles her counterparts from the original film and the first two seasons of the show–all whip smart female officers hampered by overconfident, unintelligent male superiors–her character is even more plagued by the difficulty of discovering what really happened.

The finale ends, like the ending of Inception, without revealing whether Varga or Gloria is correct. This puts us, the audience, in the uncomfortable position of the characters for the first time all season. Now we have to decide what happened without the omniscience that we have heretofore enjoyed. This ambiguous ending works well because both Gloria and Varga are right. Gloria is right that there is a fundamental difference between events, especially crimes, which “really happened,” and those that are only supposed, conjectured, assumed, or alleged. Yet, Varga is correct that, in practice, (mis)perception creates narratives which become “true” insofar as they are widely accepted.

Nihilism, the Death Drive, and the Joker in The Dark Knight

In On Evil, Terry Eagleton argues that Freud’s concept of the death drive can be synthesized with traditional theological accounts of evil, particularly those of Augustine and Aquinas, to define evil in terms of death and annihilation. As portrayed in The Dark Knight, the Joker perfectly embodies this theory of evil. The Joker embodies nihilism, chaos, and fear because he has no ordinary motive, such as wealth, power, or revenge. He destroys others for no other reason than his perverse enjoyment.

Nihilism and the Death Drive

At the end of his introduction, Eagleton says, “evil is indeed all about death–but about the death of the evildoer as much as that of those he annihilates” (18). The Joker is obsessed with death, both his own and that of others. During the bank robbery with which The Dark Knight opens, the Joker nonchalantly shoots one of the men he hired to perform the heist. In fact, he gives each member of his crew the order to kill another of the thieves once his role in the robbery is complete. Throughout the film, the Joker kills police officers and gangsters alike, and arranges the assassinations of a judge, the police commissioner, and, of course, Rachel, the mutual love interest of Batman and Harvey Dent.

Beyond his destruction of other human lives, the Joker exemplifies the drive toward his own annihilation. According to Eagleton’s reading of Freud, the death drive is the idea that “human beings unconsciously desire their own destruction. At the core of the self is a drive to absolute nothingness” (108). The Joker exemplifies this kind of nihilism. At Gotham General Hospital, he gives Harvey Dent a gun and presses it against his own head–had Harvey’s coin landed on the other side, he would have pulled the trigger. At the climax of the car chase, the Joker and Batman advance toward each other–Batman on the Bat-cycle and the Joker on foot. Although the Joker has a gun, he does not shoot at Batman. As Batman races toward him, the Joker mutters to himself, “Come on. Come on. I want you to do it. I want you to do it. Come on. Come on hit me. Hit me. Hit me!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGisF2GgKHM

Eagleton says, “The evil are in pain” (103). Three times the Joker asks, “Wanna know how I got these scars?” He tells two different stories–and would have told a third had Batman not interrupted him–about the origin of his gruesome trademark. Neither anecdote the Joker shares about his scars is true, but they both point to the foundational truth that he is a profoundly maimed individual or, as the Joker riffs on a famous Nietzsche quote, “Whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you stranger.” The Joker’s humanity has been brutally warped by the abuse and suffering–whatever form it actually took–he has undergone.

Eagleton argues that evil, in contrast to the more common wickedness or immorality, is “supremely pointless” (84). Evil has no utilitarian goal; it is irrationally unconcerned with money, sex, and power. It is wicked to kill someone for money, but it is truly evil to kill someone for no reason at all, for the enjoyment of it. Eagleton calls this “obscene enjoyment” (100) as it is the sado-masochistic element of evil. Hence the Joker puts the “laughter” into “slaughter” as is emphasized on the side of his eighteen-wheeler.

Augustine’s Privation Theory of Evil

The classic description of the pointlessness of evil comes from Augustine’s Confessions. Augustine describes stealing pears as the nadir of his sinfulness because he stole them not for the sake of eating them–he threw them away afterward–but simply for the enjoyment of the sinful act of theft itself.

Augustine’s views of evil developed partially in opposition to Manichean dualism. The Manichees believed that the universe was the battleground of Good and Evil, which were equal but opposite cosmic forces. Evil, thus, was its own substance, independent from Good. In the words of Peter Brown’s landmark biography of Augustine, Augustine of Hippo, the Manichees believed that “God was good, totally innocent” and “so convinced were they that evil could not come from a good God, that they believed that it came from an invasion of the good” by a “hostile force of evil, equal in power, eternal, totally separate” (47). For a time, Augustine identified as a Manichee, but once Manichean beliefs proved hollow to him, he abandoned them.

According to Augustine’s later views, as well as those of Aquinas, evil is a “deficiency of being” and a “lack, negation, defectiveness, deprivation” (125) as Eagleton summarizes. Like darkness is a lack of light and hunger is a deprivation of food, evil is fundamentally an absence of the Good. God is the source of all being, all existence; evil is a corruption of the Good, with no independent existence of its own. As the Joker illustrates, the greater the deprivation of the Good, the more twisted and destructive one becomes.

The Joker, the Nazis, and Logistics

The irony of the pointlessness of evil is that the most evil figures, from the Joker to the Nazis, are often capable of incredibly rational thought and organization. Eagleton argues that one of the “most grotesque features of the Nazi death camps was the way in which sober, meticulous, utilitarian measures were pressed into the service of an operation which had no practical point at all” (96-97). The extermination of Jews during the Holocaust had no utilitarian function (in fact, it was anti-utilitarian, as German resources necessary for combating the Allies were wasted killing Jews) but was carried out in the most efficient, utilitarian way.

The same is true for the Joker, who is a logistical genius. Although his murders have no practical purpose other than inspiring panic, he plans them with incredible forethought and the greatest attention to detail. He makes his getaway from the bank in a school bus amidst a line of other school buses; he disguises himself as a nurse to infiltrate Gotham General; he arranges for a burning firetruck to block the path of the police convoy and force it down onto Lower 5th (a.k.a Lower Wacker in Chicago). Knowing that the police will be watching for snipers during the commissioner’s funeral procession, he sets a timer on a window shade overlooking the parade route, so that it flashes open to distract the cops, while he shoots at the mayor from the ground (again in disguise, this time as an officer). He surgically implants a bomb in a criminal’s stomach so that he can detonate it via a cell phone and make his escape from prison. Using masks and fake guns, he dresses hostages up like his own men, while giving his thugs doctors’ lab coats to wear to confuse the police. If he were not a few clowns short of a circus, the Joker could certainly work as the Chief Operating Officer of a major corporation.

In planning a strategy to stop the Joker, Bruce tells Alfred “Criminals aren’t complicated, Alfred. We just need to figure out what he’s after.” Bruce is correct that most criminals seeks something rational, like money, power, or revenge, but the Joker is no ordinary criminal. As Alfred tells Bruce, “Some men aren’t looking for anything logical . . . some men just want to watch the word burn.” In contrast to Gotham’s mobsters, who seek wealth and power, the Joker seeks simply to annihilate everything and everyone. Thus, toward the end of the film, the Joker sets fire to an enormous stack of money and proclaims his superiority over the mob, “All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class of criminal.” The Joker acknowledges that he is a man of simple taste–“dynamite, gunpowder, and gasoline”–those things which burn best. His motto is “everything burns,” which suggests that life is meaningless–the basic claim of nihilism. The Joker’s nihilism is self-fulfilling: if he can cause Gotham to descend into chaos, then he was right all along.

It is out of his own inner lack that the Joker’s violence springs. It is the absence, the “terrible non-being” at his core that drives the Joker to destroy everything around him. Eagleton contends that the “obscene enjoyment of annihilating the Other becomes the only way of convincing yourself that you still exist” (100). The Joker turns his inner feeling of nihilism outward.

Eagleton further argues that in the evil person, the death drive is “turned outward so as to wreak its insatiable spitefulness on a fellow human being. Yet this furious violence involves a kind of lack–an unbearable sense of non-being, which must, so to speak, be taken out on the other” (127). This is why the Joker has “nothing in his pockets but knives and lint,” why he frequently kills even the thugs who work for him, and why he blows up a major hospital.

The characteristics of the evil which the Joker represents is what makes him so difficult for Batman to defeat. In the interrogation scene, which may be the most wrenching moment in the film because it shows Batman at his most vulnerable and humiliated, the Joker mocks Batman, even as Batman slams his fist into the Joker’s head, by saying, “You have nothing to threaten me with. You have nothing to do with all your strength.” Unlike any other villain, Batman ultimately cannot defeat the Joker through force because the Joker cannot be deterred by pain–he relishes it. Because of his nihilism, the Joker does not fear anything. Through a combination of technology, determination, and physical toughness, Batman can crush most opponents into submission, but the Joker will never stop.

Christopher Nolan has given evil a new face for this generation in the Joker. Yet, the evil which the Joker embodies has important precedents in both history and fiction, from Nazism to Shakespeare’s Iago in Othello and the Witches in Macbeth. Iago’s nihilism springs from his irrational desire to engineer Othello’s destruction, while the Witches relish the chaos that results when they give Macbeth their prophecy. In his drive to annihilate Gotham City, the Joker seeks to make the world look like the gaping wound in his own soul.

Sources:

Terry Eagleton. On Evil. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Peter Brown. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

Memory and Narrative in Memento and the Torah

The protagonist of Memento, Leonard, has lost his short-term memory. He retains–or so it seems–a basic knowledge of who he is and, most importantly, that his wife was the victim of a brutal assault. Leonard’s life is oriented around pursuing his wife’s killer; vengeance gives him purpose.

A foundational exhortation of the Old Testament is to “remember the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:18). That is the impetus behind every feast and observance commanded in the Torah. Memory is likewise the underlying necessity for the “theological virtues” of faith, hope, and love. Without memory, there can be no narrative of God’s faithfulness to his people, and thus, no proper response of worship by the people back to God.

Memento explores the violence that results from Leonard’s efforts to construct a narrative for his life after he has been stripped of his ability to properly remember. The scriptures likewise recount the fatal consequences of forgetting what God has done.

Memory in the Torah

In Exodus 12:24-27, God instructs Moses about how to celebrate the Passover: “Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. When you enter the land that the Lord will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. And when your children ask you, ‘What does this ceremony mean to you?’ then tell them, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.”

The memory of God’s miraculous deliverance from Egypt is to be L’dor V’dor, seamlessly passed from generation to generation.

The crossing of the Jordan is likewise to be memorialized. In exact parallelism to God’s instructions to Moses about observing the Passover, God commands Joshua to take twelve stones from the Jordan, over which the Israelites crossed as God held back the waters. Joshua set up the twelve stones they took from the Jordan at Gilgal:

“He said to the Israelites, ‘In the future when your descendants ask their parents, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them, ‘Israel crossed the Jordan on dry ground.’ For the Lord your God dried up the Jordan before you until you had crossed over. The Lord your God did to the Jordan what he had done to the Red Sea when he dried it up before us until we had crossed over. He did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the Lord is powerful and so that you might always fear the Lord your God” (Joshua 14:20-24).

As God parted the Red Sea, so He parted the Jordan, and in both cases the inquiries of future generations are to prompt the community to remember and re-tell the stories of God’s past faithfulness.

Memory Loss in Memento

To create continuity between past and present, Leonard uses notes, tattoos, and a Polaroid camera. Not quite the law written on the heart foretold in Jeremiah 31, Leonard’s tattoos provide his only incontrovertible truths. As he gathers information about his wife’s killer, he tattoos it on his body, so that despite his memory loss, those Facts are always right there for him to see. Leonard likewise uses the Polaroid to take pictures of significant people and places, and then writes notes about them, so that when he encounters them again he will know who and what they are even though he doesn’t actually remember them. As he says, “you learn to trust your own handwriting.” When we first meet Leonard’s friend, Teddy, for example, we, like Leonard, view him through the lens of Leonard’s note about him: “Don’t believe his lies.”

While Leonard is confident in his ability to uncover the truth, despite his memory loss, his tools fail him throughout the film. Natalie is able to manipulate Leonard, for instance, because he cannot find a pen in time to write himself a note about her shocking cruelty.

Forgetfulness in the Torah

If memory is the biblical virtue that makes all others possible, then forgetfulness is a most debilitating vice. No matter how faithful God is to his people, if they fail to remember what he has done it will do them no good. The paradigmatic Old Testament example of forgetfulness is the bad report of the spies and the Israelites’ subsequent refusal to enter Canaan. When the twelve spies return from Canaan, all the people, other than Joshua and Caleb, turn against Moses, as they clamor to return to Egypt:

“And all the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The whole congregation said to them, ‘Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness! Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey. Would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?’ And they said to one another, ‘Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt.” (Numbers 14:2-4).

The Israelites’ forgetfulness is so profound that, although God delivered them from Pharaoh’s army, they are unwilling to face the Canaanites for fear that they will die. Earlier, having forgotten the affliction of slavery they complain about the manna God graciously provided for their sustenance and mis-remember their life in Egypt:

“”Oh that we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at” (Numbers 11:4-6).

Rather than gratitude for their deliverance, the Israelites actually reminisce about the good ole’ times they had back in Egypt. This will not be the last time the Israelites long to return to Egypt (see Jeremiah 42). Their forgetfulness virtually makes void all that God had done for them. As a result, God condemns that generation to die in the wilderness.

Jesus’ disciples, especially in Mark’s Gospel, are characterized by a short-term memory loss as dramatic as Leonard’s. Although Jesus miraculously feeds a crowd of five thousand men with five loaves and two fish (Mark 6:30-44), when his disciples are faced with another hungry crowd, this time of only four thousand men, they ask, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?” (Mark 8:4) as if they had not witnessed the earlier miracle.

Leonard’s memory loss undermines even those truths which he claims with certainty. Throughout the film, Leonard refers to Sammy Jankis, a man with similar memory loss as himself. Unlike Leonard, Sammy apparently failed to find a system through which to cope. Sammy’s wife grows increasingly frantic as she tries desperately to restore his memory. The one thing Sammy does remember is how to administer his diabetic wife’s insulin As Leonard relates the story, Sammy’s wife tells him that it’s time for her shot even after Sammy has already given it to her. Sammy shrugs and gives her another shot. Sammy’s wife repeats this process, hoping that Sammy will somehow realize that he has already given her insulin. According to Leonard, Sammy sends his wife into a coma by giving her multiple insulin shots.

It’s not until the end of the film that we realize that Leonard has conflated Sammy with himself. Leonard’s wife survived the assault; she died when Leonard gave her too much insulin. His quest for vengeance is an illusion. Even that which Leonard believes most firmly about himself is not true.

The Israelites’ warped memory allows them to alter the shape of their communal narrative, casting themselves in the role of the victim, and descend into self-pity, rather than trust in God. Leonard’s failure of memory likewise enables him to construct a false, but reassuring narrative for himself.

Meaning and Narrative

Memento‘s final, horrifying revelation is that Leonard’s quest to avenge his wife is a fiction he has perpetrated on himself. The film’s plot unfolds ingeniously in reverse, so that the end of the film is actually its chronological beginning. In the film’s final scene, we discover that Teddy, who is a police officer, has tried to help Leonard achieve a kind of catharsis by enabling him to confront and kill his wife’s assailant. Teddy already helped Leonard kill the man who assaulted his wife a year before the events of the film, but Leonard doesn’t remember it.  Teddy and Leonard recapitulate the drama of Leonard’s vengeance when Teddy arranges a meeting with a drug dealer named Jimmy, who Leonard murders believing him to be his wife’s killer.

In talking to Teddy after killing Jimmy, Leonard realizes that his life will be meaningless without something to pursue, so he turns Teddy into his suspect. He burns the Polaroid Teddy took of him after he killed his wife’s assailant and the one of the dead Jimmy, writes himself a note not to trust Teddy, and records Teddy’s license plate as that of his wife’s killer. At Teddy’s expense, Leonard provides himself with a string of clues that will give him direction every time he comes to his senses. Engineered by Leonard himself from the beginning, the film’s first scene (and its chronological end point)–Leonard’s killing of Teddy–is inevitable.

Leonard is a modernist insofar as he lives within a narrative of his own making. He is the author of the narrative of avenging his wife’s killer. It is his handwriting alone which he trusts, and his notes alone which authorize his murders.