The Double

This is a seriously weird and disturbing movie that initially looks like it's going to come across as a bit of a 21st Century downmarket version of Brazil. Our hero experiences a sequence of unsettling events, seemingly unconnected and apparently trivial to a degree, although clearly aiming to tee up some of the later action.

The lighting, the sounds, the camera shots are all wonderfully done, setting a disturbing and unsettling atmosphere that gently but with increasing urgency begins to throw a blanket of latent claustrophobia across characters and happenings. We witness curious incidents and are left to guess their significance, our hero reaches out to the girl but is beaten to the jump by....who exactly?

How much of what we see actually takes place is questionable. How much some of the latter scenes make sense even more so. Yet, as it twists and turns towards the denouement, I found myself gripped and engaged to an uncommon degree. It is a difficult movie as it winds up, no question, but I find the notion that anyone feeling suicidal needs warning before viewing as slightly hysterical.

On the one hand, this is an easy film to describe, whether you reference the source material, or your talk about the doppleganger and what it might be like to find one has a double. Yet on the other hand, it's almost impossible to sum this up after one viewing, as there felt like there are so many little bits and pieces that suddenly reveal themselves to your eyes and ears. that you're forced to think about going back to sit back through it again. The question is, which one of you will go...?

"Look at me, look at him. He stole my face."

I don't know why this film didn't engage me as it has most people, but there was just something about it and its characters that simply alienated me. The Double is Richard Ayoade's follow up to Submarine, and it feels heavily influenced by other works, especially from directors like David Lynch and Terry Gilliam. It is actually an adaptation of an 1800's novella written by Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Ayoade adapted it with a unique and clever style. There is a lot of dark humor involved and it also has a philosophical undertone. Despite being influenced by all these works, the film still feels unique and innovative, but it just didn't resonate with me. I'm just not a big fan of these surreal films that don't follow a classical narrative style, and The Double is just that, it plays out as a sort of nightmare for the main character played by Jesse Eisenberg. It's a case where I felt the film was more about style and aesthetics than substance and content. I prefer Villeneuve's Enemy, which is also a film dealing with a doppleganger premise, over this bleak film. There is no doubt that The Double is a creepy film, but one that didn't work for me and one I don't plan on revisiting because like the main character in The Double I felt completely alienated in this dystopian world.

The film introduces us to Simon (Jesse Eisenberg), a timid and shy young man who seems to live his life unperceived by everyone else. Simon always tries to please those around him and is very submissive despite everyone's indifference towards him. He's been working at a government agency for the past 7 years, and despite having some great ideas, no one ever pays attention to him. He is in love with one of his coworkers, Hannah (Mia Wasikowska), who he is too shy to speak to. He always looks for an excuse to visit her at the printing room, but he never finds the courage to ask her out. She is also kind of a lonely and strange girl herself, and Simon often finds himself watching her through a telescope from his apartment. Simon's life turns around when one day his boss, Mr. Papadopoulos (Wallace Shawn), introduces a new coworker named James who is physically identical to him, but with a complete opposite personality. Everyone likes James, and no one even seems to notice he looks exactly like Simon because they don't even conceive of his existence. James is so outgoing he has no trouble getting his boss's attention and seducing women. James befriends Simon but ends up using his ideas to impress Mr. Papadopoulos and seduce Hannah. All of Simon's dreams and hopes are shattered by James who is taking over everything he's passionate about, but was always afraid to take a stand for.

The premise seems interesting, but the way it was presented is what didn't work for me. Ayoade created such a unique dystopian and bleak world that it made me feel dull and alienated. I didn't really care for the characters in this film, despite the wonderful dual performance from Jesse Eisenberg. He once again proves he's a talented actor and carries this film. Mia Wasikowska is also wonderful and plays alongside Eisenberg really well. The performances were strong, I had no problem with them, but what I didn't enjoy were the characters they were playing and the way the film was narrated. The film tries to explore our senses, but all it did for me was make me feel indifferent towards it the same way Simon's coworkers felt towards him. It's a quirky film with a lot of quirky sounds and musical score that just didn't work for me the same way it did for most audiences.

I am currently studying Russian Literature at the University of Bucharest and one of this semester's assignments involves reading three of Dostoyevsky's novels: Crime & Punishment, The Double and The Brothers Karamazov. Having finished the second book today, my memories in regard to the source material are still clear & well-defined, so I will try to pinpoint some things I've liked and some things I didn't about Richard Ayoade's 2013 film.

What I didn't like.

• I understand that the movie doesn't aim to be the most accurate adaptation, hence it's modern setting, but the truth is, the movie is just loosely based on the novel. I say that because it only makes use of some plot devices that are to be found in the book, but mostly fails in capturing the inner emotional turmoil, dilemmas, paranoia and mental dizziness of Simon, elements that make Dostoevsky's Golyadkin an interesting case for me. Here the character of Simon is simplified a bit. For example when Simon meets his double, instead of the sheer dread that makes me feel the horror of this unspeakable resemblance, one can see a sudden cut to a Simon that has just faint - an easy gateway for the screenwriters and the director. Or the very first encounter with the double, when James takes the photos of the Colonel and other employees, that seemed a bit too abrupt and in a certain sense - rushed.

• an unnecessary comedic tone, with tasteless jokes for a rather profound story.

• The mild Chinese racism - did the screenwriter try to copy Dostoyevsky's sense of mocking towards the ethnic Germans?

Things I did like

• the color grading, the tones, the hues, the sick greenish of the office; Better that I'd have imagined.

• Jesse Eisenberg's (The Social Network) and Mia Wasikowska's performances.

• ''a person can get really sick by just floating by''

• also the speech about Pinocchio and feeling like you're not real. And the subway scenes especially.

Everybody thinks they are special. Everybody thinks they are unique. Everybody also thinks there is someone deep down that can and must come out so they are better people. As our protagonist thought. But in this case, that person was not that great but was what our protagonist thought he was missing.

I am not familiar with Dostoevskys book but this adaptation from Ayoade was really more like Kafka. A bizarre story set in a bureaucratic, soul-less environment where humanity tries to come out like a flower through concrete. Or as an obnoxious douchebag.

But the memorable Brazil-like imagery aside it's a few degrees too weird and loses you a bit.

I've now seen two films by the talented Ayodade – the other being his coming of age 'Submarine" - and had a very similar reaction though they are miles apart in style, story and theme.

First, this is a gifted film-maker, who doesn't want to play by the usual rules. Next, he knows how to get off to a great start, build a fascinating world, get you involved with his people, but third, he doesn't quite find ways to make his third acts pay off as interestingly (or powerfully or emotionally) as the first two-thirds of the film promise. In both films the focus drifts to less interesting elements or variations on the stories he's telling.

And last, he needs to lighten up on the too-obvious 'homage's to his cinematic touchstones. In "Submarine" it was (among others) Wes Anderson and "Rushmore". Here the overbearing influences (there are many) are led by Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". There were a large number of design and character choices – while effective - that came close enough that I couldn't help but sit there making comparisons ('Hey, there's Wallace Shawn doing Ian Holm'). And it starts to approach that fine line between inspiration and plagiarism.

That said, there's a lot to like here. The photography is often gorgeous. Jessie Eisenberg does a terrific job in a tough double role – a meek office worker who is suddenly faced with another employee who looks exactly like him. But the new guy has a brash, self-confident personality, everyone loves him, and no one else seems to notice the two are physically exactly alike, right down to their clothes.

This raises interesting questions about personality, perception and reality. Is "James Simon" (the cool one) merely a psychological projection of the nerd, "Simon James"? But if that's the case, why does everyone else interact with both, together and separately? Is it that Simon is the only one who thinks they look alike? i.e. is Simon projecting himself onto someone who – if we saw objectively – wouldn't even really look like him? Well, that would be an interesting idea, and a promising road for the film to explore, and it hints heavily at that possibility, only to simply drop and contradict it.

And that's part of why this is two-thirds of a great film, not a whole one. In the end things play out in a way that has been foreshadowed from early on, and suddenly the film feels less deep, less challenging, more an exercise in cinematic playfulness than an exploration of deeper themes both personal and societal. The head trip becomes too literal, the conclusions too simple for the complex surreal reality we've come to accept

On the plus side, the effects are terrific, and many of the best scenes in the film are Eisenberg talking to himself in one shot. (A hell of an acting challenge as well). And the film has a dark sense of humor that keeps the Kafkaesque world and 'big themes' from becoming ponderous, (Again, I just wish I had less often chuckled, but then thought 'hey, that just like the scene in 'Barton Fink…', or whatever).

In any case I look forward to whatever Ayoade does next, but I hope he will find a way to finish as strong as he starts, and to be brave enough to trust his own very good sense of style, and not borrow quite so much from others.