MMM Podcast, Episode 91: ‘Looper’ Roundtable
It has been said that “Looper” is one of the best, most original science fiction pictures in recent memory. That’s all well and good, but now The Gentlemen will have their say in their traditional roundtable fashion. Does the Rian Johnson picture starring TDK Trilogy alumnus Joseph Gordon-Levitt deserve all of this praise? Time to close the loop.
Download the show HERE.
I enjoyed the movie. I’m not sure it follows the time travel-rules it establishes for itself very well. But I’d have to see it again.
On the subject of letting Joseph Gordon-Levitt play his older self:
Levitt apparently wanted to initially, but Rian Johnson vetoed that idea. He said (and I’m paraphrasing) that he can always see through the make-up to the younger actor. That there’s a certain weight and presence in an older actor that a younger actor isn’t capable of conveying.
* S * P * O * I * L * E * R * S * ! *
On the subject of the ending:
I don’t think the subject of Cid is meant to have a concrete resolution. It could still go either way, but Cid has a better chance with his mother then as an orphan. It goes to the argument that Joe is having with himself in the diner. Joe-2074 is arguing that his destiny is preordained from childhood and Joe-2044 is arguing that it’s not. For me, that’s the core of the film, and it’s a subject that doesn’t have an easy answer. It requires a leap of faith that someone can become a good person. As for Cid’s temper tantrums, they played real for me. I knew childhood acquaintances who had similar behavioral issues (though they didn’t have his back story) that have turned into calm and functioning adults.
I think there were seeds planted for the suicide that Joe commits at the end of the film. There’s a scene between Joe and Suzie (Piper Perabo) right after the time-lapse dismemberment scene. In it Joe wonders if he did the right thing turning his best friend Seth (Paul Dano) over to Abe.
Then there is that scene of Joseph and Cid on the farm where Cid tells Joe about his childhood. So by the time we get to end of the film, Joe has a point of connection with Cid. He isn’t like the anonymous persons who show up out of nowhere bound and gaged with a bag over their head. He identifies with him and is willing to sacrifice himself for his benefit.
I totally bought the ending and the fact that Sid would have ultimately gone down the path of the eventual “Rainmaker.” Witnessing his mothers death and then living a life on his own from the age of 7 or whatever would definatly lead to a disgruntled adulthood. So by having a happy ending for sid i bought the fact that he would eventually be able to control his powers.
I think what’s key is the interaction he and his mother had because up until that time he didn’t consider her his real mother and it’s a mother’s love that “turned him.” That’s my theory anyway. For me I work in mental health so when I think of a child at the age of 6-7 living on his own he’s obviously going to have some mental/anger issues. Ultimately ones upbringing is the foundation of their adult lives and this kid, powers or no powers, would be a very distrurbed person.
To relate it to comics it’d be as though Bruce Wayne didn’t have Alfred and grew up in an orphanage, what may have happened to him? Or in Nolan’s universe without Rachel Dawes he may have became criminal or who knows.
Or if Superman would have landed in place where he was raised by neglectful or abusive parents. It’s hard to say.
These are my views anyway and my past experiences ultimately shaped these beliefs. Just like our past movie experiences affect our expectations on future movies of that genre. Our experiences factor in to what we become and I think that’s the case in Sids. Having his mother eventually saved himself and the future world.
[...] and Chris and Josh and I talk about LOOPER in the latest Modern Myth Media podcast! Click the poster below to [...]
Good child actors in recent films:
The whole cast of attack of the block
And
The whole cast of I declare war.
No one brings up Dr.Manhattan (especially for the the Rainmaker reveal scene)?
As for Anakin Skywalker, no Jake Lloyd did it better.
You know why? Because Anakin (according to OBI-WAN IN NEW HOPE) was a great pupil that Darth Vader Killed. The implication being that Darth Vader as a personality WASN’T there when they met on Tatoonie and isn’t the personality he grew up around Obi-wan with. While the prequels aren’t of great quality they do show how Vader as a personality DEVELOPED after he joined the Jedi(especially when his mother died and under the mental influence of the future emperor). In Jedi, they even show the Anakin Personality resurface, in the famous scene (that got the “No”s edited into) when Vader stops the emperor. Vadar wasn’t suppose to be that scary kid, he was suppose to be a boy with great power who’s twisted by the emperor.
As for Joe’s final scene, I was partially expecting young Joe to point it at his chest and yell for the older Joe. Then older Joe figuring out he’s willing to do it and possibly backing down.
Best JGL line that perfectly reflected Bruce Willis’ John McClain style:
“I’m from the future, you should go to Asia”
“I’m going to France”
I think that Cid’s resolution is better left open ended because there is no easy movie answer to that age old nature vs nurture argument. If you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby, should you? To explicitly come down on either side of that argument would overstep the serious tone of the film, and I think I like it better for leaving it kind of open.
However, if I were to argue how Cid’s life might have changed, I would look at what was actually different. What effect did Joe have on Cid? Certainly their time together and Joe’s eventual sacrifice would have left an impression, hopefully for the better (the internal logic of the film would seem to rule out that the Rainmaker closing loops in the future was a result of older Joe’s actions in the past, but then again there are hints).
I believe younger Joe’s biggest contribution to Cid’s life is actually made indirectly through Cid’s mother. When we first see her, Sarah is chopping away at a dead tree stump. Why is she so preoccupied with this tree stump? More than just the typical setup to show what a tough girl she is (which is quickly disproven in the following scene where she trips over her own feet) I believe that the tree stump is a metaphor for the past that Sarah is still chopping away at. The shot of her bloody hands could represent the guilt she feels over abandoning her child, and the pain of losing her sister. The next time we see Sarah out at the tree stump chopping away is the scene where she explains to Joe about her past and her true relationship to Cid. Why is she so preoccupied with this tree stump? Because she would rather dwell upon and pick away at her troubled past and the guilt she feels than face her son openly about it, and finally let it go.
Now, I’d need to see it again but I think you could make the argument that Sarah’s experiences with Joe change her for the better, and possibly allow her to forget about the tree stump and her guilt. He makes suggestions about just having the stump pulled out mechanically, and how she needs to talk to Cid about their past, as well as forcing her to see, through her own actions, that she is a good mother. Even her knowledge of what Cid might become as provided by Joe might go a long way towards changing how she raises him. Whatever the result, if you are looking for a lasting effect that Joe has on Cid’s life, I think if you look at Sarah’s arc, you might find it.
But in the end, we aren’t meant to know for sure how Cid will turn out, because then there would be no point in living, in having free will, or the whole nature vs nurture debate.