Following

Remember the very first time you saw The Usual Suspects (1995)? And if you haven't seen it, what is wrong with you? Go. Now. Anyway, like the very first time, before the film's central twist garnered its own cult universe and a legion of followers, imitators, and parodies? Remember the sheer "holy shit that was great" feeling that crept up on you as the Verbal Kint flashback montage scene played out, and it dawned on you that the filmmakers just threw perhaps the greatest curveball in cinematic history?

Following (1998) isn't quite that good. But it's damn close. For starters, it's low-budget and low-fi whereas The Usual Suspects was epic, lovingly and meticulously rendered. Hell, a masterpiece, if we're being honest. Following's plot is a good deal less complicated, less layered than Suspects, but the sucker punch plot twists retain a raw power that rivals anything out there. Basically, I haven't been this pleasantly surprised by a relatively unknown film in a while.

So, you know Christopher Nolan? Director of the two latest wildly popular and generally kick-ass Batman films? Most Americans (myself included) got their first taste of his brand of twisted intensity with Memento (2000), the chronologically reversed tale of a short-term amnesiac in search of justice for his wife's murder. But Following, Nolan's directorial debut, came two years prior, shot on a shoestring budget in London over the course of an entire year. The actors, all Nolan's friends and all otherwise employed, were available for shooting only on Saturdays.

Nolan's debut is shot in black and white, in what appears to be a trend for film auteurs (Darren Aronofsky's Pi and Kevin Smith's Clerks, for example). Part urban ethnography, part crime thriller, Following starts out slow, introducing us to our nameless protagonist, an unemployed wannabe writer. Through voiceover narration and flashback sequences, we come to learn of the writer's peculiar habit. Initially undertaken as nebulous anthropological research for his fledgling career, the writer takes to stalking people, or "following," as he calls it. What begins as innocuous and random soon turns sinister, as one of the writer's marks turns the tables on his following game. Discovering a mutual love for illicit means of ethnographical exploration, our writer and his mark, Cobb, embark on a whirlwind burglary tour of London. But when the writer falls for a woman (known only as The Blonde) whose house they've burgled (after stealing her panties, no less!), things get a little more complicated. The writer has no idea how much danger he's in as he is drawn deeper and deeper into both Cobb's and The Blonde's worlds.

As he has shown a penchant for in subsequent films, Nolan breaks the narrative of Following apart and puts it back together all out of order. The style is disorienting at first, as I'm sure it's supposed to be. In fact, initially, it's not clear if subsequent film segments are even dealing with the same central characters. By the time the audience recovers enough to figure out what the hell is going on, the film is already well into its second act. Surprisingly, Following clocks in at just over an hour, making for a great choice if you're strapped for time or just looking for a quick watch. Despite its duration, the film in no way feels incomplete, as Nolan manages to pack the substance into a little space with an economic use of cuts and dialogue.

Following really is a gem, and an insightful look into the early career of a superstar director. It's terse, tense, eloquent, and brings forth a sparse beauty all its own. Highly recommended.

Storyline & plot: 10/10
Cinematography & effects: 8/10
Music & mood: 7/10
Performances: 8/10

The Reverend says: 9/10