Dark
Night * ½ / *****
Directed
by: Tim
Sutton.
Written
by: Tim
Sutton.
Starring:
Eddie
Cacciola (Veteran), Anna Rose Hopkins (Summer), Robert Jumper (Jumper), Aaron
Purvis (Aaron), Kirk S. Wildasin Iii (Little boy).
Back in June, when I did my list
of the 25 best films of the 21st Century so far (inspired, like so
many, by the New York Times doing the same thing) one of the films I listed was
Gus Van Sant’s Elephant – which was his film about a school shooting not unlike
Columbine. Made just 4 years after Columbine – at a time where it seemed like
every week brought another school shooting (it doesn’t seem to have stopped, as
much as morphed – it’s no longer just schools that are the targets of these
mass shooting events) Van Sant’s film offers no reasons, no explanations, no
comfort to the audience. He depicts a day at a high school, like it was any
other day, except that the end of the film has two boys storm the school and
kill many of their classmates. The film was controversial at the time for many
reasons – one of them was the style of the film – which was basically made up
of long, flat, tracking shots – made the events look calm or even beautiful,
and Van Sant did nothing different for the normal scenes as he did the shooting
scenes. That was, of course, part of his point – and even though Van Sant does
depict the violence, it’s impossible to argue he glamorizes it. The violence
has no sense of cathartic release, or even visceral power. It’s drained of
that. Director Tim Sutton says he was heavily inspired by Van Sant’s Elephant
when making his film, Dark Night, which is his take on the Aurora, Colorado
movie theater shooting. His film is more stylized than Van Sant’s – and as an
example of film craft, the movie is quietly remarkable. And yet, I couldn’t shake
the feeling throughout the film that Sutton is guilty of many of the things
that Van Sant was accused of, but I didn’t think he did. Dark Night felt more
exploitive and judgmental than Elephant did – and also feels like a film that
Sutton is congratulating himself for making as he’s making it. The whole thing
rang hollow to me.
The style of the film is somewhat
confusing. It is going for a vérité quality in most of its scenes – although there
are moments that resemble a more traditional documentary – as the filmmakers
are interviewing their subjects (why they are interviewing them is never
answered) – and there is even a fantasy sequence at one point. Mostly though,
the film follows its characters, who are mostly leading quiet, lonely,
melancholy existences – isolated, or self-isolated, from those around them.
Unlike Elephant, which never tried to hide the identities of the would-be
shooters, Dark Night doesn’t tell you until the end – and actively tries to
misdirect your suspicion throughout the movie. Will the lonely teenage artist –
who has given up his passion, and answers questions with as few words as
possible snap, and kill people? What about the guy who dies his hair orange –
much like the shooter in Aurora (who we see on TV) be the one who snaps? Or the
army veteran, who has trouble getting his life back together, and spends time
cleaning his guns? Eventually, it will become clear who the shooter is (Spoiler
alert – it’s none of them, but another lonely soul). The film follows them all –
as well as a fitness obsessed young woman with a YouTube channel (I think that’s
what she’s filming for) – and some younger teenagers just being teenagers.
Honestly, more than anything
else, it was this approach that bothered me – this guessing game the Sutton is
forcing the audience to play to figure out who’s going to live and die. It felt
exploitive. Worse, because they are all living what amounts to similar, lonely,
isolated, depressing lives, Sutton seems to be implying that all his characters
– and perhaps everyone – all live in the same spectrum, all just waiting to
snap and kill people. That feels like a rather glib observation – and, frankly,
an offensive one. The ending of the movie doesn’t bother to show the violence –
just the moment’s right before it’s going to happen – and it felt to me like
Sutton wants to be congratulated for his restraint here. But it feels cheap.
Sutton’s talent is undeniable. The
film is impeccably crafted, with great visuals and sound design. He has talent –
and many who saw his last film, Memphis (which I have not) loved it. Yet, in
Dark Night all that talent is at the service of a glib, superficial take on an
important issue in American society, Van Sant’s film didn’t offer answers or
easily platitudes – it made you uncomfortable, but forced you to watch – and 14
years later, it still haunts me. Dark Night angered me – and not in the way the
film intends.