A number of reviews of Nightcrawler allude to Travis Bickle from Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver as a cinematic reference point for the protagonist of the film, Lou Bloom. Much about that comparison is unsound, but the core of the divergence lies with directorial intent. While it is true that a director’s intent is not necessarily always equitable with the end result of the text he created, in this case they meet.
In many interviews director/writer Dan Gilroy has explicitly outlined his intention to create in Lou Bloom a character who most specifically cannot be dismissed by the end as the typical deviance from the norm in film: the sociopath or psychopath. Gilroy’s thesis is not only that such an approach is cop-out which removes responsibility from society of deviant behavior, but that in Bloom’s case in particular society has been helping to shape and form whatever mental or social disorders might be brewing inside. As both writer and director, Gilroy wields tremendous influence over the both the organic development of the film and its final outcome. This means that when Gilroy talks about his intent and motivations, it makes more sense to listen than if he were merely a director interpreting the vision of another person’s text.
Gilroy has consistently fought back against the approach toward the film that Lou’s behavior can be attributed merely to a flaw in his own system. The system which is flawed here is capitalism and more specifically the kind of unregulated capitalism that views free enterprise as entirely market-based and not dependent upon external forces. In other words, in a perfect system, all capitalist enterprise would be conducted merely upon such internal economic pressures as demand and supply. But if there is one thing which capitalism is not, it is a perfect economic system. The flaws in the system allow for transactional interference which can artificially upset the balance of the natural foundation. Into the relatively balanced foundation of internally regulated nightcrawling enters that external force which serves to disrupt the entire architectural flow from the newshounds on the street upwards.
The real question at stake is whether Lou Bloom represents an external force that is a complete deviance which could be controlled by external regulation or not. If he were merely a psychopath, the answer would be yes. Steps could be taken to ensure that people such as Lou could be weeded out. Unfortunately, Lou is completely integrated into the capitalist system. He has learned the rules, applied them to the specifics of his job and exceeded expectations. One could well argue that Lou’s rise up the ladder of success could even still be regulated if Nina had represented an obstacle rather than a facilitator. The only way that could happen, of course, is if Nina were also herself merely a deviance from the norm. The fact that other stations are in competition for the services of Lou proves this is not the case. Neither are mere sociopaths or psychopaths, but rather manifestations of the worst elements of unregulated capitalism.
Here’s the ghost in the machine: the excesses of Lou and Nina could even still yet be winnowed out of the process if there was a governing authority independent of the profit motive endowed with the power of judge and jury. That Lou by the end of the movie is not just successful, but triumphantly so indicates this is not the case. The happy ending of the film for Lou is the final ironic punctuation which confirms that the problem here is not a deviant individual but a deviant system.
The rules of cinema are not cast in stone and are certainly flexible and fluid, but some conventions are more solid than others. And one of the guiding principles of filmmaking since the collapse of the studio system and the fall of the Hays Code of censorship has been that when a villain represents a deviation from normalcy, he almost never gets a happy ending. When a villain gets away with it in a movie (excluding horror icons, of course) it is usually because he is representative of the system at large. That Lou gets this rare happy ending for a villain is indicative that the director is criticizing society for helping to create Lou. If anything, Lou Bloom is much more like a Rupert Pupkin from Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy than he is Travis Bickle.
