Dark City (1998)

n

nTitle: Dark City: Director’s Cut (1998)

n

nDirector: Alex Proyas

n

nCast: Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly, Kiefer Sutherland,nWilliam Hurt, Richard O’Brien  

n

nDark City was a victim of the Titanic syndrome, an ailmentnthat struck any of the films that were unfortunate enough to be released duringnthe time that James Cameron’s Titanic (1998) was cruising through theaters. Butnlet’s face it, Titanic wasn’t the only element Dark City had going against it.nTo begin with, Dark City is a dark brooding film that most people would findneither: a) boring b) confusing or c) too talky. But for the right group ofnpeople, Dark City would prove to be an engrossing, gothic tale of lostnidentities and discovering one’s true self, one’s true potential. You see, thisnis the story of John Murdoch, a man who wakes up one day, not knowing who henis. He does know one thing though: something is seriously wrong in this city! Younsee, a strange thing happens when the clocks strike twelve; everyone in thencity falls asleep and things begin to change. Literally, the whole city beginsnto contort and twist until by the end of the event, the city is completelyndifferent, and as the city changes, so do the people who inhabit it. At onenpoint you might have been a humble blue collar worker, but by the end of thenchange, you might end up being a member of high society. Strange beings dressednin black go around the city changing things, what’s really going on here? Andnwhy doesn’t John Murdock fall under the spell that everybody seems to be so susceptiblento? Is there something special about John Murdoch?

n

n

nDark City was yet another one of those movies that studiosndon’t know how to sell. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned about films isnthat when a studio and a director get cold feet, the movie will suffer.  The problem is the general feeling ofnuncertainty as to how audiences will receive the film. Once this happens, thenstudio looses faith in the project and they won’t market it properly, becausenthey figure what’s the point of spending money in a movie they think will tank?nOn top of that, the filmmaker looses faith in his original vision which usuallynmeans he or she will edit the film down to a more digestible form, dumbing itndown in hopes that audiences will “get it”. A similar thing happened withnRidley Scott’s fantasy film, Legend (1985). When Scott turned in his cut ofnLegend and showed it to a test audience, the film scored horribly. Scott,nterrified that his movie would tank edited the film down, shot a couple of newnscenes to make the film “cooler” and added the more contemporary TangerinenDream soundtrack as opposed to the original classical score. Sadly, the filmntanked anyways. In situations like these, I think it’s best for directors to sticknto their guns and their original artistic vision. But they never do, because whennthere’s so many millions of dollars at stake, everybody gets cold feet. Especiallynwhen this is your second film and you want to establish yourself as a profitablenfilmmaker the way Proya’s was at the time of making Dark City.

n

n

nSo Alex Proyas made the changes he had to in order to makenDark City more digestible to audiences. He added in a voice over that “explained”neverything before hand to audiences, not unlike the voice over that was addednto Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982). I’m using Ridley Scott as an example anlot because he is a director that has faced this situation often, making a filmnthat studios are uncertain of. Weird thing with films like this is that yearsnpass, the film becomes a cult classic and then the inevitable “director’s cut”nof the film is released, which is what happened with Dark City.  People discovered it on home video after itsninitial theatrical release and then got its directors cut. The changes aren’tnall that huge, but they do make the film more complete. The biggest changes Indetected were the elimination of the introductory voice over, some scenes arenlonger, with more expository dialog, also Jennifer Connelly actually sings withnher own voice in her night club scenes, as opposed to getting her voiced dubbednthe way it was in the theatrical cut.

n

n

nThe film is strong both visually and thematically. Yet whennit was released, its stylish gothic visuals brought some critics to actuallynlabel Dark City as style over substance type of film, which couldn’t be furthernfrom the truth. If anything this movie is all about substance. Society is beingnanalyzed by those in power, who constantly shift things around. Those scenes innwhich the whole city landscape twists and contorts are representative of thenconstant urban renewals. In the film, society sleeps while those in power,nhiding behind shadows and darkness manipulate everything, if that isn’tnrepresentative of the world we live in, I don’t know what is. The mainncharacter, John Murdoch speaks volumes about those of us who are awake, thosenof us who aren’t sheep, we know something isn’t right. The main character isnconfused, because life is a mystery, but he moves on, searching for thatnultimate truth. I love the fact that he gets things done because he developsnmental powers, literally making things happen by using his brains. What AlexnProyas is speaking about here is not conforming, not being a follower butnrather, that we should take control of our lives, literally changing our surroundingsnuntil we find ultimate happiness. But there’s always that constant search fornthe truth inspite of all the distractions and the muddled facts.

n

n

nDark City is not without influences. It reminded me of Metropolisn(1927) (something that Roger Ebert, a staunch defender of Dark City also agreesnwith) because the city is a like a main character. Same as Fritz Lang’s amazingnfuturistic vistas in Metropolis, a lot was put into making Dark City’s titular cityna wonder to behold. Alex Proyas mixed old school filmmaking techniques withnsome new ones by using miniatures, paintings and computer generated images tonbring this mysterious Dark City to life. The art direction is outstanding,nProya’s use of lights and shadows and the wardrobe makes everything look retronwith lots of film noir going for it. Thematically speaking they have similaritiesnas well because both films deal with class issues, albeit in different ways; fornexample in Metropolis society is presented with the idea that the rich andnpowerful and the working class should work together for the benefit of all, ansort of idealistic take on the matter, while Dark City takes a diametricallynopposed stance, it wants to wake up the sleeper, the worker bee. It proposesnthe idea of waking up the sleeping masses so that they can become masters of theirnown destiny, cutting through all the bull crap that was inserted in their mindnfrom inception. So as you can see, the film is not a flimsy one, it has lots tonsay. Top all that with a great cast, including Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly,nKiefer Sutherland and William Hurt and astonishing gothic art direction and you’vengot yourselves a winner of a movie meant to be enjoyed for generations to come.

n

nRating: 5 out of 5  

n