Searching

The kids follow our own example, of course. We’re constantly looking at screens and devices. My husband stares at computer monitors for work, watches Twitch for pleasure. And I’m always typing a document, taking a photo, editing documents and photos…

So we were easily captivated by Searching‘s dual-gimmick hook, the fear that parents might not know their kids, and the concept that so much of our life today is focused on screens and driven by technology.  Shown to us on a never-ending series of screens, Searching doesn’t look like a conventional movie, an approach that makes age-old concerns feel entirely of the moment.

The Good:
The gimmicky concept of this thriller is reasonably novel, still new enough to feel cool, at any rate.

Remember when The Blair Witch Project ushered in an era of “found footage” horror movies and thrillers?

Searching is an early example of a related sub-genre, a movie that shows us everything through a series of screens (mostly computer). We never see David Kim (or any other character) in person. Instead, we see him looking at a computer screen (sometimes at his own face). The story is told as David clicks through various programs and apps. He FaceTimes, texts, Googles, uses social media, watches news broadcasts and videos (sometimes of himself), opens files, reads articles, sets up hidden video cameras and views the feed on his screen. Everything we see, we see on a screen, usually the screen of David’s personal computer.  (Can you use the long phrase “personal computer” when talking about a Mac?  I suppose Searching could also be viewed as a feature length commercial for Apple products.)

If you’ve seen the film You Were Never Really Here, think of the innovative scene where security camera footage only shows us the protagonist’s violent (and plot-essential) movements through a house. This whole movie is like that.  We never witness anything “first hand” without the intermediary intervention of a screen.

Surely there must be times when David leaves his computer, right? Yes, but when he’s out in the real world doing stuff, we see those actions in recorded footage, often viewed at a later time back on David’s home computer.

I can’t think of another film that is presented entirely in this way (though I’m sure that by now, there must be others). The movie that does come to mind is Rear Window, with its claustrophobic quality and implication that we’re a society of voyeurs, staring (whether through windows, cameras, screens) at one another’s private lives. There’s definitely a Hitchcockian vibe to Searching. In some ways, it reminds me of another extremely claustrophobic film, Rope, a movie in which we are forced to stare at characters forced to stare (unknowingly) at a murder scene/victim. The murder victim in that film is named David (like the protagonist here), and everyone is worried because he’s gone missing. They don’t realize that he’s literally right in front of them the entire time. Well, two people know it, the people who killed him.

The whole “looking at screens” angle is brilliantly done. What’s awesome is how much alluring material we’re shown in the margins of the screen. While David is focusing on a text message or a video, we see in the background of his desktop a surprisingly relevant headline here, a sly visual clue there, and, of course, red herrings everywhere. Not only does this showcased marginalia provide a fun little adventure quest for the audience, but it also comments (quite powerfully) on our information inundated society.  

The thing is, without even leaving his house, David still has so much metaphorical ground to cover in his investigation.  Not only does the ease of using the internet and all these apps put so much material at David’s fingertips, but his family has also lived a typical twenty-first century lifestyle and documented (with readily accessible, searchable photos, videos, documents) every moment of their existence.  (His wife even kept a little file annotating Margot’s every interaction with all school acquaintances since kindergarten!  This made me feel like quite a slouch, but it’s also so easy to believe.)  When faced with such seemingly unlimited access to data, David (like all of us) must know which information is relevant and what “noise” he can safely ignore. But how can he know?  How can any of us know?  When we decide what information to focus on, what is influencing our choices? Are we being guided, knowingly or not, and are we sure we can trust that guidance?

While I’m talking about all these visual clues (and misinformation), I have to say that the mascot of the girl’s high school just killed me. I thought, “Well, that’s an odd choice,” and it did turn out to be quite relevant thematically.  I know there’s a lot of highly relevant information staring David (and us) right in the face as he looks at that screen.  Some of it, we notice and David doesn’t.  Some of it, we realize we must have missed when thinking back on the film after seeing the ending.  That makes a second viewing a must, an experience that promises to be quite different from watching the first time through.

Another thing I loved about this movie was the story itself. I won’t spoil anything, but take away the whole gimmick of presentation, and the story is still pretty captivating as a thriller. I personally found the solution to the whole mystery quite wonderful because it adds a psychological complexity to the story and a bit of retroactive heft to some of the performances. I could go on and on about some of the characters–I have a lot to say, believe me–but a discussion like that would spoil the entire movie. Often movies like this get so twisty that by the end we’re asking, “Hmm. Was that one twist too many?” In this case, we’re like, “Oh yeah, that explains so much. How did I not notice before that x,y,z really made no sense?” The resolution may be a bit outlandish, but it immeasurably improves the story. The characters all seem much more well drawn by the time we’re done, and we get to ask so many awesome, thought provoking questions, questions that go beyond, “So did you notice that people today are always looking at screens?”

John Cho gives a terrific performance as David, which is fortunate since we’re with him the entire time, and at least 60 percent of the time, he’s only interacting with people through screens. (If you ever see him near another person in real life, you’re the one who’s not there, and there’s a better-than-average chance he’s about to do something violent. Then he’s going to have to watch it later recorded from someone else’s perspective. That can’t be fun.)

Michelle La doesn’t have much to do as Margot, but as the movie goes on and on, it’s impossible not to get attached to her face, sweet and always sort of melancholy.  (We learn less about Margot from her words than from her silences.  We learn even more from seeing the things she sees.  That makes the part difficult to play.  There’s not much for the actress to do, and yet if she doesn’t convey the character well, the movie won’t work.)

As Pamela, Sara Sohn has only a small part in the movie but leaves a huge impression.

Joesph Lee is very good as Peter, making him a character about whom we can believe anything the moment we hear it.

And as Detective Vick, Debra Messing gives a different kind of performance than I’ve ever seen from her before. I wasn’t sure I liked it at first, but I came around. She’s very good.

I also enjoyed the score by Torin Borrowdale, particularly as the movie ended.

Best Scene:
I’m a fan of the scene David records himself with his own hidden cameras. The conflict is so intense, and then his reaction to the phone call is so well done.  That’s a great moment from John Cho.

I also really like the movie theater attack scene.  What’s great is that we don’t see it happening in real life.  We just see clips of it later.  And what’s happening looks different depending on who is watching and when.

Best Scene Visually:
At one moment near the end of the film, we’re given a visual clue that elicited an audible gasp from our audience before David even registers it. That’s a magnificent moment, viscerally sinister.

Best Action Sequence:
I love the opening sequence of the film, the montage of memories from the computer.  It’s like the beginning of Up. Five minutes in, and we’re totally invested.  Then we get hit with an emotional gut punch. I had a visceral reaction to that second run. I think I even made some weird, audible noise with my throat.

For a movie that’s always showing us events through screens, Searching is very good at eliciting visceral reactions from the audience.

The Negatives:
Searching is the kind of movie with strengths and weaknesses that are two sides of the same coin. One of the coolest aspects is that we’re looking at screens the whole time. But sometimes, you think to yourself, “I want to know what this person is like in real life when they really meet,” or, “Yikes, this looks bad! But this video is making him look bad! I want to see how it really happened!” But there is no fake “really” in this film, no cinematic gaze we can absolutely trust.  

In a way, that’s good, because real life is like that, too.  There’s no objective truth about developing situations.  Well, I mean, there may be a God’s eye view, but not one we mere mortals can tap into at our convenience.  All we have when trying to piece together reality are any number of potentially confused, varying points of view.  In this movie, we don’t get to see what happens.  We get to see what David sees and what David sees others see.  But life is like that, too.  Except in very remarkable (or tragic) cases, life has no reliable narrator.  It is a bit disorienting to be presented fiction that mimics reality so closely when (at the movies) we’re used to getting fiction that is more obviously a construction put together for our convenience.

That’s an aspect of Searching that’s cool (both in a shallow, gimmicky way, and on a slightly deeper, intellectual level), yet it’s also sometimes frustrating and annoying, because being spoon fed things can be reassuring.  Sometimes, we want to know the real truth and see real, unmediated interactions for ourselves.  Too bad.

The movie asks the clear questions, “Can you be sure you’re seeing everything?  Do you need to see everything?  Even if you see everything, do you really notice everything?  How can you trust what you do see?”

But while we’re trying to formulate these questions and come up with answers, Searching kind of pulls the rug out from under us and yells, “Surprise!  This movie isn’t about using technology at all!  It’s about human psychology!  Welcome to Gaslighting 101!”

Maybe this isn’t that frustrating as you watch, but it’s extremely frustrating as you write a review because you want desperately to discuss an entire aspect of the movie that is forbidden to you because you can’t give spoilers in a review.

So I guess for me, the film is basically well executed.  Even the stuff it gets wrong, it gets right.  In fact, it presents a surprisingly cohesive “moral,” and thoroughly answers the question, “Can you ever be too involved in your child’s life?”  All you parents out there with kids online, you think you know who your child really is just because you talk to them every day?  Well, does Searching ever have something to say to you!

Overall:

“All kids should have to watch this,” my husband decided as the movie ended.  “And all parents, too.”  He’s probably right.  Our fifteen-year-old and nine-year-old should see this movie–if we can ever yank them away from all of their various small screens long enough to watch it.  Of course, the moment we attempt to watch Searching at home, our three-year-old will immediately start begging, “Can I please watch toy shows on my taaaa-bLETTE?”  So hopefully the Blu-ray release will feature captioning (because I worry headphones will damage his hearing).

If you like thrillers, you should definitely watch Searching.  The gimmick is clever, but the movie is more than just that.  It actually has quite a bit to say, and it’s incredibly engaging.  The whole time, my husband was pretty sure Margot was dead. I was absolutely certain that she was alive. One of us was correct.  You’ll have to watch Searching for yourself to find out the truth.