Looper, Graphic Novels and The Importance of World Building

Mondo poster per HuffPost

Before we officially start off  I want to point out some of the odd similiarities between Looper and last year's Drive. Both are seemingly mainstream efforts and sold as such, they are made by critically-noted directors and have turned out to be much more than your average "car-chase" movie or Bruce Willis movie. Coincidentally both films were released by the conjunction of Sony and Film District, which suggests both the studio and distributor know what they are unleashing on the audience. What's great about both films is that they are like sneak attacks on the audience, films with an experimental and out-of-the-norm edge sold as blockbuster thrillers. The key difference is that Looper is much more accessible than Drive. Where Drive had a slow European style, Looper is rife with plenty of shooting and explosions. I note this as Looper also includes as many art-house and independent film flourishes as Drive does but under the guise of a science-fiction chase film. At the very least Looper avoids the sub genre of "action movie just happening to take place in cool-looking future setting" such as this year's Total Recall. It is a relief and joy that both films get such wide releases but the problem with that is that the films are often ignored and misunderstood by the public at large.

Looper is well made and highly entertaining but its first half is much better than its second. The last 50ish minutes of Looper become a completely different movie, not one that is bad or doesn't work but feels completely different from the fantastic set-up the first hour prepares us for. But I'm not really here to review the movie, I want to talk the most important aspect of the film, something that's been missing from movies for quite awhile and it's something most movies are too lazy or afraid to do. Or maybe it's something current filmmakers have forgotten to do, world-building. It seems as if in most modern films especially blockbusters set-dressing or set-showing takes the place of world building as if those establishing shots do all the work for them and they have no need to further explore the world they have spent so much time designing and making sure it looks all shiny, pretty and cool. What makes Looper such a great breath of fresh air is not its plot or style but rather its ambition, director Rian Johnson puts so much work into making us believe in this world he's created. Now if you're wondering what this has all to do with graphic novels it's that Looper belongs a unnoticed sub-genre of film I like to call "Graphic Novel films not based on graphic-novels or comic-books" I'm working on something a little more catchy. There's something about the "Look" and style about Looper that makes it feel like a graphic novel which I know more than enough to call its cinematography. While the subject of how graphic novels themselves world build is a large essay on its own for the sake of reader's time and patience I want to focus on films. Just know that graphic novels tend to be really really good at world building for a variety of reasons whether it is the time a reader has to sit and absorb a graphic novel/comic-book or the details of the illustration in a panel. While movies try this with establishing shots of futuristic cityscapes (of which Looper has plenty of) they tend do nothing more than just sit there for the few seconds they're on screen and look cool, not much different than the far away backdrops in video games.

Total Recall per screencrush.com

What I'm trying to say is that these worlds are meant to be involving, places we want to be engaged in which are fundamental parts of any great film, something the viewer is engaged or involved with. I mentioned earlier how Looper is part of a sub-genre I broadly defined "The Graphic Novel Film" and a few choice examples include The Book of Eli, Hanna, Running Scared as well as the Walter Hill trilogy aka The Warriors, Streets of Fire and Last Man Standing but I also should note that just because a movie is hyper-stylized or based on comic-book does not make it a "Graphic-Novel Film" because as noted it's not also the visual style and cinematography that is important but the world-building aspects of the film as well. As a quick example the first Blade film is a graphic novel film but Sin City is not despite being based on a graphic novel and employing an emulation of Frank Miller's illustrations and panels. Sin City is excessively stylish but there isn't much of world there as we intuitively know everything is green screened or tiny sets, sure it looks impressive but ultimately feels like a gimmick. The trick to proper and effective world building is making these things, the sets, the characters, the props feel tangible. And part of what makes Looper great and feel like a rarity these days is its feeling of expanse, over time it gets harder and more difficult to film in real locations giving films an isolated and artificial look* (and I know how that sounds as all films are artifice). While there are echoes of The Terminator in Looper an obvious influence on the film is Children of Men, this a big comparison to make and by no means am I really comparing the two but Alfonso Cuaron's brilliant masterpiece is still to this day one of the expansive and ambitious world-building films in over the last 12 years of film-making. It's more than enough that Looper aims high where most films don't bother. You  needn't look any further than the biggest film of the year The Avengers to see a blockbuster that feels artificial and ultimately small at double the production budget, even the attack on New York is isolated to about two blocks, does this mean Looper is a better film than The Avengers, not really but it is something to note as our bigger films go one route while the other is being phased out for a variety of reasons.

I am very well aware of the irony of using an image of isolation while talking about Looper's expansiveness. Although this does illustrate the graphic novel look of the film. (image from aceshowbiz.com)

 Hell, the easier comparison to make is to that holy grail of sci-fi films Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, and just like Scott's film and Cuaron's Johnson is interested in where our current economy might lead us to. The film makes it more than obvious its views on economic disparity but one could also make the point that basically any science fiction film use the world gone to grungy shit as futuristic background, even the recent Cloud Atlas does so. It's hard to say whether or not Looper will join the ranks of iconic classics like Blade Runner or Children of Men but I do know I won't be surprised to see anyone of the next comic-con carrying around Blunderbusses and talking about "TK-ing".







*Looking at all the problems and over-exposure faced during the production of The Dark Knight Rises.