I remember hearing about this movie years ago, probably around the same time I heard about most of the films featured here. Still, though, I did often wonder what this movie was, and would sometimes get it crossed with Inkheart in my memory, which I remember being advertised much more when it was released. Anyway, having finally gotten around to it, I have to say it’s not too bad. I guess I would describe it as sort of along the lines of what creators like Terry Gilliam, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, or Neil Gaiman like to make, but on a lower budget and with more digital effects. I think that, given what they had to work with, they did a pretty solid job. It’s not a wholly original story exactly, and it does sort of throw you in the deeper waters and expect you to go with it (though, then again, it is an arty film, so that might be expected), but I think it manages to convey what it needs to convey well and is ultimately able to complete itself in a way that works. So, let me give you an idea of the story.
The story is split between several different characters, all tied into one central conflict. We start with John, a businessman that seems to be having difficulties at work and is driving somewhere in his car, clearly angered and frustrated. As he crosses an intersection, he’s struck by another car, leading to a blackout. Through a dream sequence or a memory, we see that John has (or had) a wife and daughter, and he seemed to be somewhat detached from his daughter. When she asks him to play pretend with her, he’s rather dismissive, saying that this is what her mom should do with her instead, though he eventually gives in. This leads into a scene where a bunch of people suddenly flash into existence on a suburban street at nighttime and start going into people’s houses. Whilst in these houses, they seem to bring good thoughts or dreams to the people living there, though the people can’t see them. One of these good dreamers happens to be John’s daughter, Emma, who doesn’t appear to be living with John, instead with her grandparents, interestingly. Sadly, at the same time as these “good sandmen,” or Storytellers, are doing their work, there’s also a crew of “bad sandmen,” or Incubi, who bring nightmares and bad thoughts to other households, including to John himself. While all of this is going on, another being jumps into the picture, a strange raggedy man named Ink who breaks into Emma’s house and steals her away. The Storytellers try to stop him, but he manages to get away through a portal. This translates in the real world to Emma being in a coma, unable to wake up. Her grandfather goes to John and tells him that Emma needs him, but John just berates him for taking Emma away in the first place, throwing back the grandfather’s old declaration that “she’s not your daughter anymore” right in his face. Meanwhile, a group of Storytellers are trying to find a way to get Emma’s soul back before it’s too late. Apparently, Ink intends to hand her over to the Incubi in exchange for becoming one of them, and the Storytellers don’t want that to happen, so they’re starting to think that maybe they can get John over to the hospital, one way or another. The movie essentially jumps between John in the real world dealing with his current miserable life and thinking back on how he got here, the Storytellers trying to influence the “flow” in order to push John to Emma, and Ink taking Emma to the Incubi while also dragging along another Storyteller as a prisoner. I won’t tell you how this all works out, though you might have an idea already. Check the film out and see for yourself how it ends, but as for me, I’m going into my thoughts.
Ink, in a lot of ways, is basically the classic “adult version of a children’s story” idea. It covers a very fantastical idea with clear good guys and bad guys, but with much more adult-centered issues and with a more modern setting and style. It’s probably why I compared it to Gaiman earlier, as he definitely likes to play with that sort of idea, though Ink is much more straightforward a story than, say, his attempt at a vast worldwide-connection story in The Sandman. I’ll admit, I tend to be here and there when it comes to Gaiman, I wasn’t a huge fan of The Sandman when I read it, mostly finding it to be more flowery than anything else (as if he was trying to make big statements, but never really made them interesting or mean all that much). Ink is closer to one of his more straightforward works, like Neverwhere or Coraline, so it’s much more focused on telling one story rather than several. However, it does still edge on the borderline of being a bit too on-the-nose and flowery, and I’d imagine just as many would find the final reveal to be weak as those that would find it interesting. It’s focus on being a more dark, dramatic story also doesn’t allow it much of the quirkiness that a Gilliam or Jeunet project might have, thus risking coming across as full of itself to those detractors I brought up earlier. I think this is just the sort of movie that you’re either going to find pleasantly surprising or pretentious, so it’ll ultimately be up to the eyes of the viewer. It’s also potentially alienating to those that might expect a more typical sort of storytelling presentation, since the film basically just throws you into the concept of this world without much explanation, or at least not much at first. There’s no narrator or character dialogue to tell you who the Storytellers and the Incubi are, or even who Ink is when he shows up, all of that is elaborated on as we move forward. For some, that might make it more interesting, but for others, that’s going to throw them off from the get-go, so it’s probably best to introduce this movie to someone who hasn’t jumped too far into the “art-house rabbit hole,” but is sort of edging towards it. However, if they just don’t respond to that kind of storytelling at all, then it’ll probably be a bust no matter what. Anyway, aside from all of this, if there is something that I find cool about this film, it’s that they managed to make the vision work on limited resources (for the most part, anyway). The film isn’t shot on vast fantasy sets for most of the runtime, instead relying on parts of the city, rooms you could probably find anywhere, some green-screen shots here or there, and only one major set, though even that is rather minimalistic. Most of this is enhanced with very bright lighting (that often looks like a flashlight being shined right at the screen), sketchy digital effects (or Silent Hill effects, as I called them), and blue/gray and green filters, which was the style at the time, admittedly. While the nature of this low-budget approach is noticeable to an extent, the film does manage to pull you in enough to make this not ruin the overall experience, or at least it did so for me. So, on that note, I give them props, and in general, I think they did a pretty good job of telling their story. I don’t have too much more to say, so I’ll wrap up the review here.
In the end, Ink is a good film. It might be more appealing to certain audiences over others, and it’s certainly not an all-time favorite for me, but I am glad I saw it, and hopefully, you will too. The film doesn’t seem to be too hard to find, so that certainly helps with exposure. So, break out Ink sometime, it may be dark and a bit murky, but it’s got a lot of potential, and it just might take the right person to see it.