Doubles and doppelgängers on page and screen

Did you ever think you might have a double, someone identical to you but unrelated? A doppelgänger, that is, or “double goer” in German, a lookalike or alternate self. The term has ominous portents in some traditions and the concept has appeared in various cultural forms many times over the centuries.

Two current films, both based on novels, explore the idea of the double or doppelgänger. They are both fascinating films and generated a great discussion at a film group meeting this week. (These films are available on DVD or streaming on Amazon Instant Video or Netflix.)

The films and the books from which they are adapted are:

Enemy directed by Denis Villeneuve and starring Jake Gyllenhaal, adapted from The Double, the 2002 novel by Jose Saramago, the Portuguese Nobel Prize winner, who died in 2010. (The original title translates as The Duplicated Man.)

The Double directed by Richard Ayaode and starring Jesse Eisenberg, adapted from the 1846 novella, The Double, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Both films stand on their own as distinctive works of art. There’s no need to read the books to appreciate them. But both books are excellent and well worth reading.  The Saramago book is one of his best.

Both films tell the story of men who suddenly discover that another person looks and sounds exactly like him. The double seems to be trying to take over his life, or is he really? They raise questions of duality and identity, of psychic bifurcation. They follow the general plot lines of the original novels fairly closely but the endings vary dramatically.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Enemy is set in a contemporary but dystopic-looking Toronto. Skyline scans are tinted a murky sepia tone; Brutalist concrete architecture is featured; spiders and their webs are a recurring theme. (Note: there are no spiders in the Saramago book.) Gyllenhaal plays Adam, a college history professor who we see teaching about dictatorships and totalarianism. By chance he sees an actor who looks exactly like him on a DVD he’s watching. He researches the actor and finds out his name and address from a production company. When he goes to the actor’s agency to find out more about him, the security guard thinks he’s the actor. When he calls the actor’s home, his wife mistakes Adam’s voice for her husband’s.

Now believing that he really has a double, Adam contacts Anthony; eventually they get together and discover they are identical, even to scars, moles and birthdays. I will not tell you the rest of the plot, but Anthony and Adam’s girlfriend are killed in a car accident. It may be that Adam will take over Anthony’s life, or at least his wife invites him to do that. The film has a scary and bizarre ending. The book’s ending, in which a third double phones Adam to request a meeting, was also quite intriguing.

In The Double, Jesse Eisenberg is Simon James, a minor functionary in a government bureaucracy set in an indeterminate time and place. The locations and exteriors are Kafkaesque, and seem to be in an industrial European city. Office and computer equipment looks like it’s from the 1950s or ‘60s. One day a new employee joins the department and the director, played by Wallace Shawn, thinks he will be the best employee ever. His name is James Simon and he is identical to Simon James, which no one else seems to notice. James, however, is brash and charismatic, whereas Simon is timid and bumbling. (Mood, setting, plot and characters follow the Dostoyevsky story closely.)

Although Simon befriends James, the latter gradually takes over Simon’s life, his job, his love interest (Mia Wasikowska), even his apartment. The ending suggests that James is Simon’s alternate self, and he has to dispose of him. The film’s ending is somewhat ambiguous and different from Dostoyevsky’s more defined ending.

Both films are well done; I would rate both as three stars out of four. Both Gyllenhaal and Eisenberg do excellent jobs of being the same person, but not quite. They do appear together in the same scenes but usually not together in the same scene with a third person. The film group had a spirited argument about self and identity and whether Adam/Anthony and Simon/James were “one bifurcated psyche,” as Gyllenhaal says in an interview. (I agreed about Simon/James but not about Adam/Anthony. I chose to suspend disbelief and accept that there could be an exact duplicate or doppelgänger.)

Film group members suggested other fine movies that deal with duality/identity/doubles, such as Adaptation (Charlie Kaufman, 2002), Mullholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001), and The Double Life of Veronique (Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1991). In a 2013 film, The Face Of Love (Arle Posin), a widow falls in love with a man who seems to be her late husband’s double.

There have been several articles recently on the current interest in doubles or doppelgängers. I particularly like this quote from a Slate article: “Any story constructed around the theme of the double—one of the most ancient in literature, which plays on the human fascination with identity and belonging, repetition and uniqueness—lives and dies by its ending.” Here we have four works of art, two on page and two on screen, and four endings.

Saramago’s novel and Villeneuve’s film open with this statement:

“Chaos is order waiting to be deciphered.”

After seeing both films and rereading both books, I would say chaos still waits to be deciphered. And that’s what makes life intriguing. There’s a surprise around every corner.


Follow this blog, please

You can sign up to get an email each time I publish a new essay on Nancy Bishop’s Journal–usually about once a week. No spam, no password. Just put in your email address at the upper right side of this page. And thanks for reading!








Five Movies You Didn’t Know You Would Like

How did I become a movie geek? It started either with Roger Ebert or Netflix. On Netflix I discovered I could get DVDs of dozens/hundreds of old/classic/foreign films I had missed or not seen in decades. Roger educated me about how to view movies (although perhaps that wasn’t his intent). And I started exploring the auteur theory of film criticism, which views the director as the primary creative force behind a film, as defined by Village Voice critic Andrew Sarris (h/t Roger Ebert).

So I began working my way through the films of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Michelangelo Antonioni, Robert Altman, Luis Bunuel, Pedro Almodovar, Kevin Smith and Christopher Guest. Then later I discovered Krzysztof Kieslowski and Andrej Tarkovsky, Lars von Trier and Jim Jarmusch, Spike Lee and Guy Maddin. Both the ridiculous and the sublime.

Recently I joined a Meetup film group. Many of the members are incredibly knowledgeable about film of all kinds, from all periods, in all technologies. The meetings where we dissect and trash or adore a film at a bar or coffee shop are great fun – and informative as well.

As a result of my movie geekiness, I’ve seen a lot of quite wonderful, bizarre and obscure films. Here are five of my favorites in no particular order; I’ll explain why you might like them too. None of the five is available for streaming on Netflix, although several are on Amazon Instant Video.

Night on Earth, 1991, Jim Jarmusch, 129 minutes

nightonearthThis is one of those “anthology” movies, where we get to share taxi rides with five different drivers and five different passengers in five cities — Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome and Helsinki — over the course of one night. There’s always a clock involved to position the story in the night. The cinematography is beautiful and there are some great surprises. Like Roberto Benigni talking (and talking and talking) to his priest passenger in Rome. Giancarlo Esposito trying to get home in New York. Winona Ryder as a tough driver in LA, who really doesn’t want to be in the movies. A few drunks in Helsinki and an African driver in Paris who learns something from a blind passenger. Cumulatively, we learn a little about race, sex, kindness and money. And time. Jarmusch must have had an unusually big budget for this film compared to his other work. Not only did he travel the world to film but also he had some actual big name stars, not his usual style. (May I recommend his Stranger in Paradise, Down by Law and Mystery Train?) Oh and there’s music by Tom Waits too. Perfect combination of tragically urban cool combined with nutritious pop culture.

Waking Life, 2001, Richard Linklater, 99 minutes

wakinglifeMy film group discussed this on a night I couldn’t attend. There was a group consensus that we should discuss an animated film. I thought oh, ok, I don’t really like animated films so I don’t mind if I have to miss this meeting. Then I decided to watch the film anyway – and I was so sorry I missed the meeting. Waking Life is a remarkable film. It isn’t an action hero or cute animal cartoon. Linklater has woven together a series of cultural, philosophical and personal discussions about life, time, dreams and reality. A nameless single character played by Wiley Wiggins is part of each segment; he may be awake or he may be dreaming and he’d like to know which. He talks with or listens to professors in classrooms, artists in coffee shops, writers walking down the street, people who are passionate about ideas. In one segment, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy talk about reincarnation in a scene that might have been part of Linklater’s “Before” trilogy (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight). The situations and characters are different in each segment. This often-existential talk could easily become pretentious but it’s playful and there’s plenty of humor to break the serious mood. How does this become animation? Linklater filmed each segment and then invited 31 different artists to digitally draw or paint over the footage of one segment in their own styles. Art director Bob Sabiston was the genius who managed that.

Waking Life is talky, provocative, beautiful, and quite sophisticated—both visually and conceptually. One reviewer said it is a “wondrous talky roundelay about and for people who love life.“ I just put it into my Netflix queue again, but maybe I’ll actually buy a copy. (I rarely buy DVDs; just Bruce Springsteen concerts and films; and several by Christopher Guest.)

Duel, 1971, Steven Spielberg, 90 minutes

duel1971This is a terrifying movie about a traveling businessman (Dennis Weaver), who passes a giant, smoke-spewing truck while driving toward his next appointment on a two-lane rural highway outside Los Angeles. The truck then passes Weaver’s beatup red sedan in a way that feels almost belligerent—and that’s how the duel begins. Weaver tries to pass the slow-moving truck again and the truck cuts him off. An early example of road rage. We never see the driver of the truck; we just feel the suspense and the animosity of his driving. The truck becomes an evil character. Weaver stops at a roadside diner and there are several trucks in the lot. He tries to figure out which guy at the counter is the driver. He calls his wife and we learn that he has to be home at 6:30, so that adds to the tension. This is Spielberg’s first film, made for television from a short story that first appeared in Playboy. It’s low budget and masterful. The ending is spectacular.

After watching Duel, you will never look at a semi on the highway the same way again. I was driving on the TriState on a rainy night, feeling like my Beetle was about to be sandwich meat smashed between two giant semis.

Russian Ark, 2002, Aleksandr Sokurov, 99 minutes

Russian Ark is a technological and artistic masterpiece, despite being plotless. Every review mentions first that it was filmed in one take. Yes, one take, one straight-through 99 minutes of digital video. No editing. But it’s so mesmerizingly beautiful that you almost forget the role of the Steadicam operator in capturing it. russianarkThe premise of the film is that a 19th century French aristocrat is visiting Russia, which he has previously excoriated in his memoirs. With the unseen narrator, he visits the former Winter Palace, now the State Hermitage Museum, and views and comments upon the art. We see many of the paintings and sculptures in the museum as well as the people, in one scene even in contemporary style. There’s an exquisite scene where Czar Nicholas and Alexandra dine with their children in a magnificent dining room, where costumes and décor are in shades of white. The film includes some whimsical scenes of the Russian aristocracy at work and play. Most beautiful are the final scenes where some 2,000 actors dance at a grand ball, in military fancy dress and beautiful gowns and jewelry. At one point, the camera seems to sweep up in to the orchestra as it gets a rousing ovation from the attendees. Finally, there’s a grand processional down an elaborate staircase as the guests depart, chattering amongst themselves as the camera moves smoothly among the sea of beautiful people. This really should be seen on a big screen in a movie theater, but if you missed the run of Russian Ark at the Gene Siskel Film Center, renting it on DVD on your own flat screen HDTV will still be rewarding.

Nights of Cabiria, 1957, Federico Fellini, 110 minutes

nightsofcabiriaThis is a wonderful film and a worthy addition to this list. But the main reason I include it is to counteract the sickening saccharine sweetness of its supposed spinoff, the musical Sweet Charity. Gag me. This musical has been hanging around way too long and it’s the main reason I stopped subscribing to Writers Theatre in Glencoe, which is otherwise a fine theater. But they had to produce this lollipop when they should have shown the real thing — the Fellini film — instead. Fellini’s wife, Giulietta Masina, is Cabiria, a sweet and naïve prostitute, who wanders Rome looking for business and for love. She has worked hard, saved her money and owns a small house. Over and over again, men deceive and mistreat her. Her boyfriend Giorgio steals her purse. One night, she meets a famous movie star in a bar and goes home with him. She is astonished at his lavish lifestyle and at first he is kind to her. Then his girlfriend appears and Cabiria must hide in a closet. On another night, she goes to a magic show and the magician lures her on stage and hypnotizes her. She confesses her desire to be married and have a happy life. The audience laughs at her. Afterwards, Oscar, one of the men in the audience, wants to meet her. At first she’s cautious but after a few dates, she is in love with him and he proposes to her. On their wedding day, she has sold her house and brought all of her savings for their future. Later they walk in the woods; he takes her purse and abandons her. In the final scene, she is in tears, walking down the road back to Rome. A parade of happy young people forms around her, playing music … and Cabiria smiles sweetly through her tears. It’s a dramatic and poignant black-and-white film, with no egregious singing and dancing. You can view the 1998 restored version.


If you like–or hate–any of these movies, please leave a comment. I’d love to hear about your favorite quirky, bizarre film favorites too.

I had to restrain myself to stick to five, so I will do this again some time. I had to leave out Children of Men, The Saddest Music in the World, Rome Open City, Wings of Desire, Holy Motors, The Earrings of Madame De ….. I might even include Gloomy Sunday – A Song of Love and Death (Ein Lied von Liebe ind Tod). It would be an amazing pairing with the Guy Maddin film, The Saddest Music in the World.