'Nightcrawler' actor Jake Gyllenhaal is great, but the movie's conception is off

Director Dan Gilroy wants to have protagonist Louis (Gyllenhaal), who films accident sites for nightly TV news, epitomize the sick soul of media exploitation, but he also celebrates him as an entrepreneurial go-getter.

Chuck Zlotnick/Open Road Films/AP
'Nightcrawler' stars Jake Gyllenhaal (l.) and Riz Ahmed (r.).

In writer-director Dan Gilroy’s “Nightcrawler,” Jake Gyllenhaal plays Louis Bloom, a sociopath – or is it psychopath? I can never get those two straight – who discovers his groove working as a freelance videographer. These are the guys who, rushing to accident sites, supply the nightly television news with their daily dollop of domestic violence and freeway carnage. In an environment where “if it bleeds, it leads,” they know there’s a huge market for their wares.Gilroy, with the immense contribution of his cinematographer, Robert Elswit, luxuriates in the seamy side of the Los Angeles night world. He’s trying to make an L.A. noir that captures the tabloid garishness of photographers like Weegee. He’s also trying to create, in Louis Bloom, a kind of anti-hero hero – a modern version of Travis Bickle from "Taxi Driver." 

But the lives of these videographer cowboys, high on adrenaline and the quick fix of cash, need a much greater scope than this film provides. By turning the loner Louis into a nutcase – if he blinked at all during the movie, I missed it – the movie becomes a species of horror film. 

Gyllenhaal, alarmingly thinned out, gives a first-rate wacko performance in the Anthony Perkins mode, but it’s at the service of a bum conception. Gilroy wants to have it both ways: He wants Louis, who perpetrates some ghastly escapades, to epitomize the sick soul of media exploitation, but he also celebrates him as an entrepreneurial go-getter who is just giving us hypocrites what we secretly (or not-so-secretly) crave. On balance, Gilroy seems to favor the go-getter. He’s seduced by his creation. If Louis were to watch this movie, he would likely approve. Grade: C+ (Rated R for violence including graphic images, and for language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.