(originally published in The Outreach Connection in August 2002)
Unless
you’re Steven Soderbergh, who seems to work at a pace unknown to Hollywood
since the 1930’s heyday of “One Take Woody” Van Dyke, well over a year passes
from when a movie starts shooting to when it hits the screen. How many times
has it been pointed out to us recently, in mitigation of potential allegations
of tastelessness, that a particular release (Bad Company, Big Trouble, Collateral Damage, The Sum of all Fears)
was filmed pre-September 11 (back
when, of course, bad taste and exploitation used to be OK)? With that in mind,
here are two current releases that may only seem
to have their fingers on a current pulse.
Minority Report
Steven
Spielberg’s second attempt to make a more adult summer sci-fi blockbuster
clearly works better than AI did. The
movie has pace and consistency and barely puts a foot wrong, dramatically
speaking. Tom Cruise plays a cop in Washington of 2054, a star of the feted
“Pre-Crime” unit. Aided by three young adults with pre-cognitive powers,
Pre-Crime detects crimes before they happen, prevents them, and places the
would-be perpetrators in suspended animation. This is so successful that as the
movie opens, Washington hasn’t had a single murder in six years, but ethical
and moral qualms hold up national acceptance of the program.
The
movie’s intellectual heights come very early on, as it debates the pre-crime
program’s religious undertones (the set design rather overplays this parallel),
and mulls over the ethics of putting people away when they haven’t actually
done anything (what if the pre-cogs made a mistake?). Reviewers have noted the
affinity with current debates over profiling and detention of terrorist
suspects and other post-September 11 civil liberties issues. This is why I call
the film lucky on the timing.
But it
quickly leaves reflection behind. Cruise steps up one day to the next murder,
36 hours in the future, and finds himself fingered as the killer. Convinced of
his own innocence and suspecting a frame-up, he goes on the run. The movie is a
superb chase thriller, with enormous fluidity and imagination. The attention to
detail is awesome, fully reminding you of Spielberg’s expansive talent. He
supposedly convened a seminar of experts in various fields, probing in detail
where the next fifty years might take us in various areas. Truth be told
though, the end results of this research are a little confusing. Clothes, home
furnishings and general attitudes are only slightly different from the present
day, whereas transportation and all the technology attending the Pre-Crime
program seem transformed beyond recognition. A Kubrick would have persuaded us
of what we’re looking at, but Minority
Report leaves it feeling a bit arbitrary.
Creative Struggle
It’s also
disappointing that the film becomes more and more a conventional conspiracy
thriller. Ultimately the ulterior motives of a conventional villain crowd out
any more serious consideration of issues. True, the narrative retains a
fluidity and imagination that’s on another dimension from normal thriller
plotting. And the movie is crammed with surprises – a wonderfully sleazy
sequence with a decrepit eye doctor, casual glimpses of highly convincing bits
of future technology (like advertising posters that, operating via retina
recognition, address you by name as you walk past), fine acting all around.
Not for
the first time though, Spielberg’s immense facility threatens to smother his
characters. That might not have been inappropriate for a future in which
individuality is suspect. And yet, the film ends with an affirmation of the
family, of fatherhood, of human connection. The film seems to be trying to
flesh out Cruise’s character, but the motivations provided to him are so
prosaic that he remains blandly functional.
In a
certain way, the messiness (if not occasional sheer lunacy) of AI (on top of all the pre-release hype
about Stanley Kubrick’s influence) made it more interesting than Minority Report to think about
afterwards. AI’s episodic, bumpy
structure at least seemed to allude to some kind of creative struggle, whereas Minority Report feels like it comes too
easily. There’s a sequence in which Cruise steers a captured pre-cog through
the mall, and with second sight spilling from her in all directions, she
brilliantly steers him away from his pursuers. The choreography is wonderful,
but it’s a very abstract kind of dance – so casual that it almost alienates
you. But maybe it’s best that the film lives on the surface of things, given
what it tells us of the dangers of digging beneath them.
Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys
The
second film is Dangerous Lives of Altar
Boys, and I assume the title provides enough explanation of why this movie
could be considered topical. The film follows two teenage boys attending a
Catholic school, where they channel their cynicism about the institution and
the dogma into generating a lurid comic book – the pinched-faced nun/teacher
played by Jodie Foster is transformed into a motorbike-riding “Nunzilla.” The
film presents this imagined alternative world in splashy animated sequences
that break up and vaguely parallel the live-action story.
One of
the boys works on dramatic diversions from humdrum life such as cutting down
telegraph polls, stealing a statue of the school’s patron saint, and kidnapping
a cougar from a local zoo. The other falls tentatively in love with a girl
whose problems run deeper than his shallow sense of victimhood can comprehend.
A lot of it is familiar stuff for sure. But this film yields many surprises
too. Foster’s character seems shallow and under-written for a while, but you
slowly realize the depth of her belief and her accompanying agonies. Jena
Malone, as the girl, is sublimely complex. And the film has a shocking climax,
even if the few epilogue scenes water down the closing impression too much.
As for the much-documented dangerous lives of real altar boys, the film isn’t at all about corrupt priests. It actually only has one priest, an easy-going chain-smoking Vincent D’Onofrio. For a while you wonder whether his conviviality will be revealed as a sick sham, but it’s comforting that it isn’t. He’s just a guy with some colour round the edges. The film doesn’t talk at all about priestly scandals – actually, the title is more lurid than the film deserves. The cartoon sequences definitely mix things up a bit, but are basically pretty expendable. The impact of the film is in its quieter moments, even if you rather doubt that the movie itself quite appreciates this. This is a bit of a minority report, critically speaking, but I found Dangerous Lives more stimulating and thought-provoking than Spielberg’s film.
No comments:
Post a Comment