Short Attention Span Review - Mr. Nobody (2009) - With Spoilers...At Least In Some Realities

The Singularity is a term coined by mathematician John von Neumann in 1958 to denote the moment when our technological change accelerates to the point that human civilization as we know it ends. Subsequent futurists have refined this term and it is generally understood to mean the moment that machine intelligence overtakes human intelligence and technological developments achieve a pace in which humanity radically alters (perhaps become a trans-human species) or goes away altogether, replaced by machines, biological constructs, or some other form of post-human intelligence. If we don't suffer a significant and permanent collapse of human civilization, this moment is almost certain to happen. At some point, things bioengineering, artificial intelligence, nano-technology and similar technologist will end existence as we know it. This does not mean some Terminator scenario where machines hunt down mankind. It does mean that our current, evolutionarily derived biology will be supplanted by some new mode of existence.

Mr. Nobody sets up a possible trans-human future, one where the Singularity has led to technology that allows for indefinite cellular regeneration -and practical immortality - for everyone. Or does it? After watching the film I'm not sure if we are to take anything we see as literally happening or to assume it all exists in some kid's imagination. I assume the former; but there is a good case - including statements by the protagonist - to be made for the latter.

After a series of distressing images, in which the titular character (Jared Leto) is repeatedly killed, the film shifts to the year 2092. Through the use of various technologies the human race has attained virtual immortality. Except for Mr. Nemo Nobody (FYI - Nemo is Latin for "no one"). Nemo is "The Last Mortal." He has just turned 118 years old and is chatting with Dr. Feldheim (Allan Corduner), a therapist. Nemo thinks he is only 34 and that it is the year 2009.

As the film goes on, Nemo experiences different past lives, all while being monitored in the future by the global media. A journalist (Daniel Mays) sneaks into Nobody's hospital room and starts to interview him about what it was like before "quasi-immortality." While we learn a little about the future world (no one has sex anymore; why?) the story is really about the different paths Nemo's life could have taken. As he talks to the journalist, he insists that every life is equally real and valuable (or valueless).

Each of his timelines is focused on his marrying - or not marrying - a different woman, Jean (Linh Dan Pham), Anna (Diane Kruger), and Elise (Sarah Polley). In all of his timelines, his parents split up. We then see how his life evolves based on which parent he goes with. The story bounces between 1989, 2009 and 2092, as well as a future timeline on Mars that is happening both in the imagination of one 15-year-old version of Nemo, as well as an actual future for another, apparently immortal Nemo. Finally, there is yet another world that resembles a movie set that appears to exist within 2092 Nemo's subconscious.

As the film draws to a conclusion, the universe either experiences the Big Crunch - in theory, the moment when reality collapses in on itself, represented here by time reversing - or Nemo's 9-year-old self (and his parents) make the choices that lead to him being with his true love, Anna. The end.

There are a lot of things to like about this movie. Much of the cinematography is beautiful. The acting is uniformly good. The future world is well-designed, a mix of Apple aesthetics and a "clean" Blade Runner urban sprawl. Elements of the plot, in particular, the branching narratives, are interesting. Finally, the film is a good example of how to create an unreliable narrator in film. We never know exactly what is or is not real, but this feeling is consistent with the structure of the story and is not presented in a way that feels unearned.

The world of 2092.

Unfortunately, the central story is banal. While the two central plot devices - Nemo's being interviewed about his life in a world where mankind has moved into a new kind of existence and his ability to experience alternate timelines - hold much promise, they're used in the service of a story that amounts to little. What exactly do we learn? One of the themes - that there are no good or bad choices, just a life to live - is undercut by the conclusion, which implies that there was an optimal set of choices that would lead to a happy life for Nemo and Anna. This is reinforced by the amount of narrative weight given to that subset of stories. Those featuring Elise and Jean occupy much less screen-time, with the latter being forgotten for long stretches. That's fine thematically, but then don't include some nonsense about all our choices bring equally valid; the story makes it clear this is not the case.

The future world was sketchily developed. It could be argued that this is unimportant since the 2092 setting was merely a framing device for the actual narrative. The problem is that, unlike, for example, Little Big Man which featured a similar idea - in that case, a 121-year-old man being interviewed in the late-1960s about the West - the world of Mr. Nobody is unfamiliar. I don't know what the "rules" (in a narrative sense) are. Why does the journalist use a vintage tape recorder to interview Nobody? Why hasn't Nemo used the anagathic technologies, since his goal is to live to the Big Crunch? Why is he the only one, in a world of immortals, who seems to be aware of the past? The reporter says that everyone wants to know about what it was like to be alive when he was younger; but wouldn't there be a lot of people who were around his age who lived to the time when the immortality technology was developed? We see that this is the case in the Mars timeline, since he meets Anna on a spacecraft, moments before it is destroyed by a cluster of asteroids. Is it tied into the notion that people no longer have sex? Has immortality led to some new form of consciousness? The 2092 setting raises a lot of questions that are never answered (assuming it exists at all).

There is also an overuse of narration, where the Nemo character hammers home the points of the film. If you can't show me what the story is about or use dialogue, but instead have to turn to fourth-wall-breaking monologues, then that is a problem. If the story were more interesting, this would be less of an issue; as it is, it becomes intrusive, ruining some well-construed images that were conveying the narrative far more elegantly than the voice-over. To be fair, there are times when the narration works. In one timeline, Nemo has a TV science show, which is used a device for conveying some of the headier concepts in the film, like String Theory. Here, the monologue is integrated into the story, not something hovering over it.

All of this may sound like I didn't like the film. That's not the case. I found many of the conepts interesting. I thought the cast was good, even when handling clunky dialogue. Visually, there are many strong images in the film, some of which move the narrative forward, others which are just well-shot and conceived. The problem is that the story and it's central message - that we have to make choices and accept that they aren't good or bad, they just are - is something you'd find in a Lifetime Channel movie. Stripped of it's veneer of bleeding edge physics, metaphysical musings and futuristic (and phantasmagorical) settings, this is really about a boy from a broken home, finding and losing women he loves and learning to cope with that. For all the evident thought that went into creating the narrative structure and the fascinating concepts introduced, the story they are used to tell is bland.

I still recommend seeing it. Just don't expect it to be anything more than a clever telling of a well-worn story.