Idylls of the King – Review of ‘The Odyssey’ (dir. Christopher Nolan)

Who can say for certain where legends end and history begins? In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Two Towers when Eomer and his Rohirrim first confront Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli on the open plains of Rohan, the horse lord hears tale of their adventures and bears witness to the drawing of the bright blade Anduril reforged from days of yore. Dumbstruck beyond his proud composure, one rider questions:

Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?

Aragorn, king-to-be, provides:

A man may do both … For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time.

Homer recounted the fabled legendarium of his people centuries removed from when it was deemed to have transpired. Like The Lord of the Rings, the Arthuriad, and innumerable works of myth, Homer’s The Odyssey squeezes into the margins between fantasy and reality. Antiquarian fears of navigating the Strait of Messina near Sicily, replete with its riptides and rocky shores, gave rise to the folklore of Scylla and Charybdis who would usher sailors to their doom. Among its multitudes, The Odyssey charts the course of a civilisation contending with newfound mobility on the high seas, during an age of exploration that must have simultaneously confounded the ancient mind whilst unmooring it from the placid norms of daily ritual. These adventures were mighty matters of legend indeed, though they were trod under light of day. In this way The Odyssey reminds us that the separation between that which is heroic and that which is ordinary is an illusion, for there are more ways for legends to come true than we realise.

A nomadic, seafaring people lived out their days in conciliation with man’s role amidst the divine order of the natural world. Their conclusion was thus: respect the governing gods, and your fellow man who might prove a god in mortal garb. This is xenia, the Golden Rule, what Nolan’s film calls ‘Zeus’s Law’. The commencement of hospitality as sacred duty which served as theological underpinning of stable society. It comes from the cognate word xenos, meaning both stranger and friend, because the person in need at your door is always both things at once. Nolan’s film takes place, an epigraph informs, “In a time of so-called magic…” That magic, subtext imparts, was a byproduct of xenia instilling implicit trust between disparate peoples.

In such a context what are we to make of our hero, Odysseus, who proudly proclaims of his repeated defiance of the gods? A heroic figure rendered such not by any deed done in life but rather by how millennia-old stories of his travails and catharsis tell of indefatigable mourning at the moral cataclysm he unleashed upon the world. There are many ideas at play to ponder in Nolan’s The Odyssey, but one emerges fully crystallised: Do not break the deepest rules of your civilisation, or else it might collapse and burn around you.

The Odyssey (top) Planet of the Apes (bottom)

There’s an Ozymandian quality to the indelible opening image of a beached Trojan horse discovered half-sunk in the sands being eroded by the waves, akin to the Statue of Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. Monuments to a lost world. The film frames the Trojan horse as an original sin corruption of xenia. A gift meant to symbolise mutual respect and deference through shared customs becomes an instrument of annihilation. And in so doing, the war it incites doesn’t just destroy people but instructs them how to weaponise their very humanity. The character of Sinon anchors commentary on societal collapse and how the tragic first victims of conflict are often the best of us, those who still resolved to fight the good fight, and how our attempts at comfort mean nothing in the wake of their loss. The Odyssey spends the remainder of its runtime attempting to reconcile that bitter truth with our dwindling existence on a dying planet.

Odysseus was clever, yet craven, when he sequestered a band of bloodthirsty brutes inside his godly gift of equine proportions. Inhumanity was smuggled into Troy under pretence of respect, and a gentile people were slaughtered in their beds for the crime of believing that the sane will not commute unspeakable violence without just cause. In other words, the Trojans were not aware that ‘all is fair in love and war.’ Yet such bestial commandments are, The Odyssey contends, the hollowing of meaning from existence itself, where adherence strips the bark of honour from the great world tree of civilisation allowing rot and corruption to fester at the roots of all we hold dear.

Agamemnon. ‘King of kings’.

Nolan’s Odysseus – King of Ithaca, a minor house of Mycenaean Greece – did not try to escape his conscription into the Trojan war at the behest of Menelaus and Agamemnon. He is drafted because a richer king demands subservience for the image of his glory, and Odysseus cannot refuse the call without forfeiting his life. Helen absconding with Paris is transfigured into Agamemnon’s solipsistic excuse for launching a campaign intended to wrest control of Troy’s trade routes. Agamemnon storms Troy’s gates adorned in a grotesque obsidian raiment, a herald of Oblivion entirely wordless until we meet his pathetic dead shade choking in the black sands of Hades. His suit of armour patently stands of its own accord, requiring no flesh within to give it structure because he is not a man but an empty cipher, surrogate for any populist leader of one’s choosing.

Nolan’s depiction of the Bronze Age collapse perpetrated in Agamemnon’s name echoes our own modern nightmare, consumed by primal fears of society eating itself through climate change and war in the name of men intent only on creating myths about themselves so as to be remembered in death, rather than catering to better outcomes for the living. Agamemnon embodies how the moral abomination of winning at any cost has destroyed our notions of essential decency. Penelope’s devastating realisation towards the film’s climax – that the veterans of Agamemnon’s war are the foreboding “people from the sea” methodically dismantling their own society – underscores how the enemies of civilisation are sometimes its self-appointed defenders, who exempt themselves from the principles they claim to uphold. As we watch Troy burn and its innocent inhabitants massacred, viewers of all ages will assuredly summon images to their mind’s eye of a formative intergenerational atrocity. I saw Palestine.

In his Idylls of the King, Tennyson used the Camelot myth to comment on his own time, warning that societal progress and empire can be entirely dismantled by moral weakness. In the chronological aftermath of Troy’s sacking, The Odyssey plays out as a series of intercut vignettes as Odysseus lands on various islands intent to pillage provisions for an ever-attenuated journey home. The film achieves something the cinematic medium is perfectly calibrated for, which is relocating the moral and thematic weight of Homer’s poem into one man’s interior struggle, so that it feels more like a modern psychological drama than an oral epic of tragic hubris. The Odyssey depicts an age of polytheism where the divine is both everywhere and nowhere, and it’s never clear where the gods end and inner monologue begins. Zeus is a thunderstorm, Poseidon the roiling waves. And Athena, invisible to all but Odysseus, assumes the form of a young Trojan priestess he watched beheaded before the goddess’s own stone idol, itself decapitated in insult. The goddess of wisdom’s presence as a splinter invading the world’s pre-eminent military mind speaks to an acknowledgement of her shame at how he chose to direct his strategic faculties. Odysseus is taunted by a realisation shared by Nolan’s previous protagonist, Robert J. Oppenheimer, that sometimes a man is so smart he breaks the world. Odysseus communes with Athena as a manifestation of his guilt, and fear of returning to a home forever contorted by his self-contempt. She is the mournful spectre of his transgressions, their dialogue akin to how the faithful might ‘hear’ the word of God intermingled with their own thoughts and feelings.

During an encounter with the Sirens, Odysseus is tormented by a “song of all the promises [he] failed to keep”, of his manifold failures as a human being and so-called leader of men who betrayed the invested faith of those kept near and dear. The nymph Calypso pleads for Odysseus to stay with her in a lotus-induced stupor of amnesia, because a problem forgotten is a problem solved. He ultimately rejects the offer, having vowed to Penelope in a happier epoch that death alone would prevent his return from a war of ruin. Odysseus disavows Calypso’s oasis because he realises only once his shipmates are dead and gone that the world might collapse under the weight of one more broken promise, and that the most tragic thing in the universe is losing precious time to be with the people we love. Such things knowingly forsaken are too much for even his fractured soul to bear. The vestiges of a shattered life still call out to him, echoes of their long-forgotten message lingering faintly on the wind. Aboard a rickety raft, Odysseus departs the shores of illusory certainty one final time. Borne hence along uncontrollable currents into unknown waters, to face head-on his solitary parlance with fate, as all mortals must lest we wander this life aimless and depraved and festooned with despair unto unmarked graves.

“… What you most want is what you most can’t have, and what you most can’t have is what you already had and lost.”

Odysseus returns in secret to his Ithaca as an Aragorn-esque hidden king – the king in our midst clothed in beggars’ rags – because this is no homecoming of swaggering victory, but a reckoning with his complicity in devaluing the sacred codes of the world. In the wake of the Greeks streaming out of the Trojan horse’s bowels to raze destruction, like Pandora’s Box spilling all the world’s evil across the battlements erected by our petty jealousies, all that remains is hope. The redeeming belief in a sacred fire that burns eternal, beyond reach of the dark shadow of man’s lust for war. That an essential part of the human spirit yet cleaves to companionship and compassion despite a collective unconscious steadily relinquishing its fealty to honour. Pilfering suitors who have unknowingly adopted Odysseus’s defiling of xenia must be drawn like septic pus from a self-inflicted wound and removed by violent delight from his home. Task complete, albeit with no place fit for him beneath a hollow crown, Odysseus sails into the West. It is a self-imposed exile not mirrored in Homer’s poem but reminiscent of that undertaken by Tolkien’s Frodo Baggins, a heartbroken lament for the world that might have been. As their ship gives chase to the setting sun Penelope assures her husband, much like the first beams of light that radiate across the horizon before eventually unifying into a bright new dawn, “Civilisation will rise again.

I’m not so sure the crowds congregating to watch The Odyssey before grand cinema screens (our contemporary home for communal storytelling where once a fire-lit cave sufficed) quite qualify as the manifestation of Penelope’s prophetic insight. We remain too divided, too discordant with our place in nature’s hierarchy, too riven by greed and excess, too disparaging of truths we don’t want to hear. The gods have abandoned us. But if any of their magic is still left in this world it exists in the shared soulspace between people who care for one another. It is the most evolved element of our nature that as creatures marooned on a hostile planet we would seek safety and solidarity in numbers. The challenge laid before each new generation is to expand that space until it can accommodate a whole species, and not just a tribe. One might insist the divine magic of xenia is not then vanished, but merely a long-dormant genetic memory waiting to reawaken in our hearts… The old stories hold secrets many have forgotten, and I think we are drawn time and again to the tales of aeons past because they contain the codex for our salvation. Seeing The Odyssey writ large on IMAX film, kept alive after 3000 years for the world to rediscover anew, tells me all hope is not yet lost and we may yet rise again.

Vicious Circle — Review of ‘The Last of Us Part II’ (dir. Neil Druckmann)

INTRODUCTION 

Anthropologist Margaret Mead was once asked what she considered to be the dawn of civilisation. Her answer: a 15,000 year-old human femur – healed, having been broken. The femur is the longest bone in the body and it takes about six weeks for a fracture there to mend. Any animal who breaks that in the wild – even an apex predator – becomes prey. The fact this prehistoric homosapien bone healed revealed an entire narrative, lost for millennia. It told the story of someone dragging this person god knows how far back to a settlement and tending to the injury for weeks. The bone was evidence of a human being helping (perhaps before complex language even existed) when it would have been easier, and wiser, to walk away. Helping each other through times of crisis is the very beginning – and end goal – of civilisation.

I liked that story first I heard. But as it sprung from memory’s well whilst playing Naughty Dog’s latest, I found myself begging for more information. How exactly did the wretched creature break their leg? Did they fall? Were they attacked and felled by some beast? I think, more than likely, the one who dragged them to shelter committed the violent deed that rendered them immobile in the first place. See, The Last of Us Part II balances two contradictory truths. It is about the extraordinary and horrific things we can do for each other, and to each other. 

The game – like its predecessor and much of postmodern apocalypse literature – is less interested in the cause of implosion than what remains. Having seen the scorched carcasses of cities on the news, the immaculately-rendered digital rubble and ruin here fell on numbed eyes. For these are just things we create with planned obsolescence – built to fall apart – that matter aught next to human livelihood. And therein lies my anguish… 

Game director and co-writer, Neil Druckmann, grew up in the West Bank. A first hand intimacy with entrenched conflict, tribalism, and the justification of atrocities seeps into all aspects of his game. The Last of Us Part II suggests these things will never leave, that we’ll always disagree on how we should live together, which is awkward, because we are stuck together. Druckmann’s Wasteland is designed in T.S. Eliot’s sense of the word, found not in the remnants of structures reclaimed by nature, but a gaunt human spirit engendered by generations of fear and uncertainty. The game openly despairs that, un-deterred as a cockroach in the wake of nuclear holocaust, the one thing to endure past societal collapse in even its most absolute form is human fragility

The Last of Us Part II is a brooding game, dripping in pus and viscera from this stain that goes unwashed. As Ellie loses herself to a vengeful fait accompli, I came to understand the clotting blood that stiffens the fabric of her clothes belongs to us all.

LOVE/HATE RELATIONSHIP

The emotional journey of The Last of Us was an attempt – through story, music, gameplay, and more – to make the player feel the unconditional love a parent holds for their child. We saw just how far Joel was willing to go for what he interpreted as Ellie’s protection: as far as lying to her face to withhold a dangerous truth. The neo-Part I closed with open-ended finality, a story complete but granted permission to grow unfettered in the imagination. That ending – held sacred by many – is doubled-down on in Part II, its immense story inflaming the scar left behind and exposing what it all meant. Like cordyceps fungus sprouting from an infected’s skull, Part II was the real story gestating beneath the surface, waiting to burst forth and overwhelm the host. 

While doubtless the antithesis to its predecessor, I and II together achieve an unexpected synthesis. Others have raised the notion that if the first game was about love, then Part II is about hate. However, the comparison feels flavourless and incomplete – as if the two were at all distinct, as if two sides of the same coin aren’t inseparable. The Last of Us was always a game – now a series – about duality. The bleak, catastrophic conclusion of Part I is countenanced by the love driving it. Part II opens with Joel justifying the decision he made, recounting a play-by-play to his brother, Tommy; Joel recalls how he could not accept Ellie’s willing sacrifice (a fatal surgery on which hinged the future of the species) and how he – we – turned misdirected grief from the untimely death of his daughter on humanity’s last hope. The mic drop is devastating not only because Joel doomed humanity, but because he spent the entire game learning to open up and care for Ellie as he did for his biological daughter Sarah, and he took that affection a bridge too far.

Joel made a selfish choice, through violent means, rooted in compassion. And here we arrive at the first point of reflection The Last of Us Part II asks us to pause and consider. That hate is no autonomous thing, and is instead born as the direct result of a perverse entitlement to love. During those pivotal moments in all our lives – when we perceive the objects of our affections as having been forsaken, when love begets hate and the red mist descends over our eyes to inspire chaos – we brush against cosmic law in its purest form. The universal, entropic principle recognised whenever we say, “what goes up must come down.” 

Five years removed, Ellie is more hardened to the violence she has to inflict. She’s wrapped a tourniquet around her heart and cauterised her soul to prevent any infectious empathy from taking hold. Ellie grew up in a broken world, driven by broken ideals. Joel’s story in Part I saw him cling to the last vestiges of that old world by saving Ellie, even if it meant further damning the new one. We make one fatefully bad choice that puts us on a road of bad choices, and once on there it’s hard to get off. Joel stole Ellie’s autonomy the moment he removed her from the hospital bed that might have made her life sacred – he placed her on the bad choice road and insisted she get on with it. In the first game Ellie explicitly told him, “after all we’ve been through, everything I’ve done, it can’t be for nothing,” but he didn’t listen. And to make it worse, one thing every single player absolutely has to do in Part I is kill the doctor standing over Ellie. We are all complicit in Joel’s fateful betrayal.

In Ellie’s mind her life exists to justify the many sacrifices made on her behalf; martyr’s purpose riven by a survivor’s guilt tied directly to her immunity. Her best friend Riley died, Tess died, Sam died – all of them avoidable and redeemable if her own immunity could be weaponised as a vaccine. She laments to Joel now, “I was supposed to die in that hospital… My life would have fucking mattered.” So when Abby murders Joel in front of her, the act represents more than the brutal execution of a loved one – as if that wasn’t enough. Joel’s deceit drove the initial wedge between them, and Abby strips Ellie of her agency to be the engineer of reconciliation with him. The act registers with Ellie as reiteration and confirmation of her eternal damnation.

DIVINE RETRIBUTION

The first game drew analogues to Cormac McCarthy’s seminal apocalypse tome, The Road. Sombre and lonely, an older man and his young companion traverse the ashen terror of a desolate United States. The one bright spark in a world extinguished is the bond of love they share. A redeeming love, fit to keep the fire of humanity burning a little longer. I had this comparison to hand as I began Part II, and it quickly became clear this here was no Road; this was Blood Meridian, McCarthy’s Western epic of American inferno.

Blood Meridian tells the story of a protagonist known only as ‘the Kid,’ who joins a gang of mercenaries hired by Mexican states to combat the Apache and Comanche tribes over territorial disputes. The gang soon begin killing and collecting “receipts” – that is, scalps – from other, peaceful Indigenous peoples, and then from the very Mexican citizens they were hired to protect. Like Part II, what sets the novel’s gruesome excesses apart is the dark religious vision attached to them. In the book this centres around Judge Holden, chief proponent and philosopher of the Glanton gang’s lawless warfare. Both Last of Us games are moored in the Old West tradition of lawless abandon. Here, Ellie rides as horse-tacked revenant spirit into a Seattle gripped by turf war, just like Glanton’s gang monitoring the Chihuahuan plains. Because there are receipts to be taken. Gustavo Santaolalla’s haunting twangs of a lonely banjo punctuate her execution of frontier justice against Joel’s killer.

Ellie is akin to the Judge in that both seem highly attuned to the savage material world around them – aligned to what they see as a violence inherent in creation; the cycle of natural selection that got us here is an intensely amoral process, but it is absolutely immoral if it was chosen by God. From the Gnostic roots of Judge Holden springs the modern Christian evangelical, fixated on a particular type of apocalypticism that man in his sin will usher in the ‘end times’. Part II’s Seraphite faction speak of the un-indoctrinated as being “nested with sin,” and spill the intestines of non-believers. By placing this story in this ravaged world, the game stares at reality and decrees God’s swift justice was dealt long ago, permanently exiling us from Paradise, left to snuff one another out. And this is why we witness no intervention to stop the predation of human on human violence.

Transcendent of both its medium and its precursor, The Last of Us Part II is the great American novel in interactive form. And like any Great American novel – from Gatsby to Grapes of Wrath – it can only be anti-American, focused on a great nation’s greatest shames. It is unlikely we’ll find the moral resources needed to accomplish the mighty transformation which is all that can save us, for such a transformation involves unimaginable damage to the Western ego. On top of being an intensely religious text, Part II articulates our worst fears — about the world, about each other, about God Himself. Because there exists no hell in our imaginings quite like the one we’ve already created. And that struggle to overcome the limits of our delusions and DNA seems cursed with the very worst quality of hell, in that it has no end.

“War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be.” – Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian

BORN AGAIN

The Last of Us Part II sets out to – and, more importantly, achieves – what all good sequels should: it challenges and re-contextualises the original, deepening the overall experience as opposed to simply echoing what people already liked. The game’s true master stroke of a bait-and-switch is it juggles this while also re-contextualising its own narrative during a second half when we restart the three-day cycle from Abby’s perspective. In pursuing this, Part II sacrifices the quiet ghost town poetry of the first instalment, as well as a certain narrative leanness. There’s less clarity, but obfuscation of right and wrong is intended. No matter what Joel did in the first game, the player’s identification with his plight was all but guaranteed by virtue of syncing us solely with him. The perspective shift here serves as more than an empty formal experiment; playing as Abby becomes baptismal, her tale of redemption and absolution intersecting with Ellie’s revenge.

It’s not about sympathising with the baddie, or splitting the player’s allegiance, it’s about tearing down the whole edifice of identification. Abby looks at Joel and sees only a monster, Ellie looks at her and sees the same. Joel also stole something from Abby. She thinks killing him will somehow honour her father’s death, turned her body into a machine of war to enable this vitriol, and in doing so pushes away everything that really matters. We glimpse from Abby’s angle on Joel’s murder the total absence of any relief awaiting Ellie should she have her way with Abby. Both sides always think they’re right. But the root problem, Part II poses, is that every side is equally blind to the ways in which they are led astray. The lone good deed Abby undertakes in this story – to heal the broken bone of one who should be her enemy – momentarily disperses guilt and allows her to dream of good things, of happy memories with the father she lost. Abby’s story offers a glimmer of hope that Ellie is not too far gone to stumble off the bad choice road and onto a path of reconciliation.

In the mean time, all-consuming obsession – like an addict unable to kick the habit – makes Ellie venture cross-country on a third occasion in her lifetime. Her complexion more pallid, her frame more wiry, days shortened by the most incurable of poisons – those pangs and stings of remorse and despair. Playing this game you desperately want Ellie to stay with Dina in the new home they’ve built, and with the child they’re raising. We see what she’s doing is wrong, and we want her to stop, but people rarely change in horror fiction – they follow instincts and enact rituals until they meet their doom. There appears only one way this story can end… However, while horror texts are sadistic and transgressive, they also challenge the conservative diktat that evil should be punished, demons destroyed and order restored. Ellie finds her target, chokes the life from her, and like the black and brown crowds righteously marching through streets across the planet for George Floyd and countless others, she weeps in helpless rage more so than in sorrow. The notion too rarely occurs in any one of us that we might become the enemy we seek to destroy.

In a 1972 article for Esquire, James Baldwin wrote in memoriam of ‘racist in reverse’ Malcolm X and ‘peace-loving’ Martin Luther King Jr., both of whom he’d known personally: “By the time each met his death, there was practically no difference between them.” In rebuke of ignorance perpetuated by the White Press about their differences, both men considered themselves produced by the same circumstance, spiritual property of the People who made them. Abby and Ellie are the kid and the Judge, Martin and Malcolm – all the way back to Cain and Abel. Living out their trauma amidst the backdrop of a six-month nightmare inside a 60-year nightmare inside a 400-year nightmare inside a 2,000-year nightmare, and on and on without respite or end. Both our world and Ellie’s have impressed upon us the need to be vicious; again and again we’ve been told killing the monster will cleanse Earth in martyr’s blood and it has taken us nowhere. Jesus was a man of colour, murdered by keepers of the law – try and tell me anything has changed… Baldwin also wrote of American Whites, “though they have never learned how to live with the darker brother, they do not look forward to having to learn how to live without him.” And right there is the rub of the green. There is no us and them, pretending otherwise is man’s greatest folly. I ask you, reader: forget the different ‘sides’ this game makes us take, why do you think the series really carries that title?

WHAT WAS GIVEN MUST BE GIVEN AWAY

The Last of Us Part II opens with Joel playing Pearl Jam’s Future Days to Ellie on a guitar he just found, adorned with a moth insignia on its neck. Moths are forlorn creatures, born in darkness and always searching for light; the guitar passes to Ellie and this song and symbol become recurring motifs along the remainder of the journey. Later, at the third attempt of her own recital (beginning as little more than a tickle of strings in the wake of Joel’s death), Ellie finds the courage to utter aloud the first lyric: “If I ever were to lose you, I’d surely lose myself.Future Days is a ballad about looking past the turbulent present, firm in the belief that peace waits over the horizon. Through the joy Ellie brought him, Joel died finally believing he deserved that after two decades of pain caused and endured. To him this girl was no moth, she was a firefly. However, in the context of Joel’s passing Ellie’s vocals become thoughts on oblivion sang against featherlight instrumentals. Stories told about lives beginning and ending, the grief of ending up alone… It was the first of many occasions this game made me cry.

For viral outbreaks, we’ve discovered, spread more than mere contagion, they spread sadness. Missed opportunities, cultural milestones, social gatherings – without these things the mind atrophies like a body starved of food. The Welsh have this amazing word, ‘hiraeth,’ that describes a longing for home, moreover a desire for reunion and belonging with the long-forgotten inner self. We feel it most potently when stripped of the relationships that give life value and meaning; it is a cruel corruption of man’s nature that our soul speaks clearest from the bones of things.

The look permanently etched on Ellie’s face across this game’s twenty-plus hours is a unique hiraeth walking hand-in-hand with grief; communicating the complexity of being a broken creature full of love, some hurting angry thing covered in sharp edges, desperate to make the world feel safe again. I know that look because I’ve seen it in flatmates I shared lockdown with, in friends and family over Skype, and I’ve seen it in the mirror. For grief is just love with no place to go. So it goes unspent, gathering in clumps in the corners of our eyes… Holding onto that anger of loss seems to keep a part of them alive – but they don’t need it, and neither do we.

I believe / And I believe cause I can see / Our future days / Days of you and me” – Pearl Jam

Prior to production delays, this game should’ve come out late last year. I’m glad it didn’t. Had it come out at any other time it would have been just as rich a text, but serendipity made it timely, and that timeliness renders it timeless. Because art doesn’t get to exist on its own terms, it meets us on ours. A good game – like any good movie or good book – is more than escapism, it puts us in contact with the borrowed world we sorrow on borrowed time, and suddenly everything makes a little more sense that we’d do well to remember.

In the game’s final scene, Ellie is alone, unloved, physically broken and barely able to play the chords of Future Days. Her odyssey’s cost weighs heavy, albeit worthwhile to learn a priceless lesson. She leaves the guitar Joel once gave as a gift and a promise in her empty house, finally laying the man to rest and accepting the possibility of peace in herself. Part II saves its final re-contextualisation for the very end. This was never a story of revenge, it was a story of forgiveness.

I think back, all those words ago to the healed femur, and if it was in fact remedied by the same one who caused it. Someone who recognised a mistake and took responsibility in correcting course. Now, wouldn’t that be something… Ellie releases her grip on Abby’s neck, both women freed in a deeper sense, still. They stand at the westernmost edge of the continent. Nowhere left to go but into the Pacific, a place without memory. Parties divide upon the moonlit water, each passing back the way the other came. Pursuing as all world-wearied travellers must inversions without end on other souls’ journeys.

A Sword of Damocles – Review of ‘Mission Impossible: Fallout’ (dir. Christopher McQuarrie)

*Spoilers

‘I’m working on it,’ is a refrain repeated numerous times by multiple cast members of Mission Impossible: Fallout as they rush to circumvent the labyrinthian forces conspiring to their downfall. And if writer/director Christopher McQuarrie’s twitter is to be believed, it summarises the frenetic production process of this movie. Of all these movies. It is a miracle than any film is ever good, and the real mission impossible turns out to be funnelling that organised chaos into an action behemoth for the ages. It’s amazing to me that no one died making this film because I almost died just watching it.

Mission Impossible is the best active film franchise in the game right now. I say that in spite of both being a bordering-on-obsessive Star Wars fan, and the fact that every other Marvel release earns a billion dollars at the box office. The worst entry in the series is still a fun John Woo caper, and since the revamp of MI:3, every film has improved on its predecessor. Ghost Protocol (MI:4) was the first to establish what we can call the Mission formula: a Rube Goldberg espionage plot, that takes Hunt and his team on a globetrotting adventure, while pinned back and disavowed by their own side, relying on a touch of ingenuity and a whole lot of dumb luck to scrape victory. Couple this with four or five genuinely bonkers set pieces, peppered with Cruise on a motorbike and/or running as fast as he can through the muck and mire, and you’ve got go-picture. To me, Fallout surpasses all five other entries to stand as a perfectly calibrated franchise film, in the vein of Mad Max: Fury Road, The Dark Knight, and Casino Royale.

maxresdefault

>>> TRAILER <<<

In Rogue Nation (MI:5), CIA Secretary Huntley referred to Ethan as the ‘living manifestation of destiny.’ A man stood in opposition to the forces of the universe, who always comes out ahead, if only by a hair. The metaphorical Sword of Damocles perpetually held aloft over his head, Fallout retroactively makes Ethan Hunt’s failure to get over the loss of his team in the first Mission Impossible the emotional spine of the entire series. One of the more famous uses of that phrase came in 1961 during the Cold War, when President Kennedy gave a speech before the United Nations in which he said that ‘Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.’ As during the Cold War, the threat in Fallout is nuclear, orchestrated by a maze-like matrix of anarchists, arms dealers, and shadow agencies. During this maelstrom, Ethan is left to stew on his valuing the lives of anyone in his crew as cost-equivalent to the billions at risk of nuclear annihilation. At first glance this seems ethically unbalanced. It’s beaten into us that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, that we’re always to sacrifice for the greater good, but Ethan doesn’t see it that way. His greatest flaw is he cares a little too deeply about those he loves, which gets in the way of doing his job. But that’s also precisely what makes him so damn good at that job, giving him the gut-busting impetus to literally break through walls and protect, if not serve.

Hunt is gifted at tipping the odds in his favour through an uncanny knack for three-dimensional chess, many of the better twists arising from him being a step ahead of his enemies, before circling back around and becoming his own true opponent. He’s in the habit of playing a strong hand poorly, as antagonistic forces play weak hands well. And so, in the middle they always meet, Hunt falling foul of oversight and left to improvise. Fallout is by far the most impressionistic of the series, as if taking place entirely in Ethan’s head as we phase with him from place to place, through memory and dream. In the other five movies, other people project onto Ethan and mythologise him. It made the allure of the character extremely potent, albeit hollow. He was an arbiter of the masculine fantasy, a romanticisation of the the suffering men endure to protect the women in their lives. The last two films have gone out of their way to be progressive in their treatment of women, through the domicile of our Lord incarnate, Ilsa Faust, to great effect. Through Ilsa, Ethan is offered the leg room to move away from an ex-wife for whom he was knight errant. For whom he was left bloodied and dying at her feet, lamenting he couldn’t do more, that he’s sorry, ‘for everything.’ Through Ilsa, however, Fallout shows Ethan it’s possible to find salvation in loving a woman who sees no salvation in you. This is an important message for all young men to hear. 

MV5BMjMzNjU5NTYxNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTI3MTE3NDM@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,931_AL_.jpg

What makes a good action movie? I think I’ve boiled the gist of it down to a triptych edict: Shoot it wide, shoot it stable, and shoot it for real.

Shoot it wide.

Give me the geography of the space in which the action is taking place. The relationship between subject(s) and setting is essential to grounding the action with stakes. Without parallax you can’t feel the momentum of movement, without a deliberate plan to shoot for the cut those explosive punches barely register on the emotional Richter scale, and without wide angle lenses throughout it’s hard to keep everything in crystalline focus.

McQuarrie has a masterful storytelling eye for his action, ensuring every face-off is its own Russian nesting doll of mini-arc within wider narrative, while the camera dissociates and keys in on a separate detail that will reveal its importance to the brawl moments later. He introduces various props at different points in his fight scenes to keep altering the power dynamics so nothing runs stale.

img_20180726_162011

Shoot it stable.

This one’s closely linked with ‘shoot it wide,’ and all I really mean by it is don’t rely on shaky-cam. The best fight scene in Fallout is shot handheld, but not using a long lens pressed in tight to the actors and making their movements indiscernible. The biggest problem with shaky-cam is it exists primarily to disguise the artifice of those lacking the know-how or time to do better work.

There’s an extra level of difficulty everywhere you look in Fallout. Cruise doesn’t just speed through the streets of Paris on a motorbike, he manoeuvres between onrushing traffic travelling counter-clockwise around the Arc de Triomphe. A police van doesn’t just drop into a river and fill with water, it rolls upside down in the process, confronting the prisoner inside with a wall of water. They don’t just fly helicopters through a valley, Hunt corkscrews downwards along the side of a mountain. And as if a HALO jump isn’t dramatic enough, they pull it off as the crescendo of a long-take that succeeds a conversation inside the cargo plane. And all of it is presented with total clarity and room to breathe. This is better than every Marvel movie combined. This stunt profanity makes my skin tingle.

mission-impossible-fallout.jpg

Shoot it for real.

Action is a genre of craft more so than any other. The closest comparison would be horror, where the mechanics of filmic tension are known, but that doesn’t make them easier to execute. Craft is hard… And expensive. And even if you nail that craft, congratulations, you’ve a thousand steps left before you maybe land on a good movie. For this reason, craft is not a ‘how-to’ guide. There’s no such thing in filmmaking, no matter how many YouTube video essayists insist to the contrary. While there are elements of the formulaic in good action, that is not to reduce its efficacy because hitting every beat of that equation is impossibly difficult, particularly as audience expectations skyrocket with the advent of advanced visual effects.

The green screen is a magnificent thing. For relatively low investment, a soundstage can transform into anywhere in the universe or the limits of imagination. It is one of numerous examples of the democratisation of filmmaking, and that’s not nothing. The advent of CGI made raw spectacle easier and cheaper, but the cost is often transferred from the process to the result. For many people a car crash isn’t enough any more. Unless two computer-generated superheroes are smashing a swarm of planet-shaped polygons into each other, the general audience can feel cheated. But there’s just something so trite and weightless about such things.

It brings to mind the urban myth surrounding the 1896 short, L’Arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat, or Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat. The 50-second-long silent film was created by the pioneering Lumière brothers, depicting a train entering a station wherein, as legend has it, audiences leapt from their seats thinking the train was about to plough into them. Now, tales of panicked audiences began to surface in the late 1800s mainly as a way for people to try to describe the emotional power inherent in the then-new medium of film, but it still serves to emphasise the point that the metrics by which we are shocked and awed by our cinema are tilt-shifting further askew. Cruise’s death-defying antics are a bold, yet appropriate promotional tactic for Mission films because they stand as welcome respite to the flood of bloodless, computerised jeopardy on our screens. Watching him, one is granted the same electric jolt of anticipation as seeing prime Jackie Chan do his thing. What the Mission movies do better than the rest is erase that barrier between act and audience. The story cannot be separated from the process; meta-narrative feeds into narrative. And if that alone doesn’t stir you into buying a ticket, well… I’m afraid the movies might not be for you.

sh0rcbidccdig

You cannot separate a good action movie from the circumstances of its creation. Action is one of very few genres where your movie earns points for the real-world enterprising and effort that goes into achieving the shots. You tell me that as part of the aforementioned HALO sequence, Tom Cruise made over one-hundred jumps across three months, where only a three-minute window each day provides adequate lighting because it’s a night scene, and where Cruise has to hit a mark exactly three feet away from camera or he’ll be out of focus while falling at 200mph? Yeah, that scene is immediately elevated above its ilk, even the haunting drop from 2014’s Godzilla reboot. The closest recent comparison is Mad Max: Fury Road, where the production built some big rigs, shipped them to the Namibian desert, then proceeded to crash them into each other until they unearthed a movie where every frame oozes fire, brimstone, and a diesel-sweat emulsion.

By now it should be clear that each Mission Impossible story can be construed as a metaphor for to the practical reality of its actualisation from page and thought, to screen. A team of brilliant people, anchored by a creative whizz and daring lead, circumvent an all-manner of obstacles to achieve something very, very hard. And for three films on the bounce now, they pull it off. Somehow, against all the odds, they pull off mission improbable. That Sword of Damocles always suspended over their heads. Can they outdo what’s come before? To fail is to tarnish what has become a legacy of excellence. And yet, they push on. I guess because we’re never done proving ourselves, because we’ve no choice but to blindly believe we can do something, and by God, they find a way. Ethan always finds a way. We always find a way. Because the alternative is unbearable.

sei_22765019.jpg

I worship at the altar of Tom Cruise, now the first actor to perform a HALO jump for real. He’s 56 years old. I’m 23 and almost black out if I stand up too quickly. There’s also a scene where he sprints so hard and for so long across rooftops and through the streets of Central London that not only is it a self-aware, ironic parody of his epic running in movies, it also comes across as him desperately trying to outrun his younger self despite being the wrong side of his fifties. It’s the perfect summation of a man who does not know what it means to quit. One of the lines in Fallout that stuck with me is when Henry Cavill’s Walker tells him, ‘Know when you’re beat,’ and of course Ethan doesn’t listen. He’s yet to pursue Walker through the mountains of Kashmir, and prevent nuclear catastrophe with seconds to spare. Neither Hunt nor Cruise know what the bridge that cannot be crossed looks like. I foresee the screenwriter of Mission:13possible will one day be frantically rewriting their way around a tragic spaceship collision beyond the dark side of the moon that costs the actor his life. And Cruise would want it all to end that way. He’s the only movie star with the combination of a work ethic to keep pushing himself past known boundaries, a production company able to finance extravagant personal projects, the liquid assets – or, blithe insouciance – to cover the exorbitant costs of an insurance policy against his own life, and the batshit insanity to risk that life in pursuit of providing his audience with palpable awe. Make no mistake, Cruise is the one true movie star that we have, and maybe the best to ever do it.

MV5BZjU2N2E3YmMtNTk4NC00NzBkLTkxZGEtN2UzZDIyYzE0N2I5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTgzMjEwMTg@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,973_AL_

As part of a long history of saying incredibly smart things, the late film critic, Roger Ebert, said this impossibly smart thing of the original 1996 Mission: ‘The bottom line on a film like this is Tom Cruise looks cool and holds our attention while doing neat things that we don’t quite understand. Doing them so quickly and with so much style that we put our questions on hold and go with the flow. When the movie is over it turns out there wasn’t anything except the flow. Our consolation, I guess, is that we had fun going with it.’ In art we often prize density. Richness of language and sound and image that rewards close analysis and a parsing-through of minutiae. It’s a serviceable base standard, for sure, but when the movies take us on a ride as cinematically centrifugal as Mission Impossible: Fallout, and show us that real world truth can be far stranger than fiction, I don’t think they’re required to amount to much more than that. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to see this movie. For god’s sake, go see it… If not for me, do it for Tom.

MV5BMTk3NDY5MTU0NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDI3MDE1NTM@._V1_.jpg

Life Finds A Way – Review of ‘Annihilation’ (dir. Alex Garland)

 

A fundamental problem with science fiction is that it’s written by humans, for humans. We write about exotic technologies and alien worlds with little concept of what can exist beyond the parameters of known experience. Imprinting our own nature onto nature. Yet, despite this shortcoming, science fiction – more so than any other genre – is amorphous and fluid. Permissive of imaginative leaps, accepting of unorthodox strata as allegory, and aware that there is more than one human nature. Annihilation, the second film from Ex Machina writer/director Alex Garland (who also penned 28 Days Later and Sunshine for Danny Boyle) adopts the unenviable proposition of presenting, in a visual medium, an alien presence beyond the capacity of human interpretation.

youtube.jpg

>>>> TRAILER <<<<

Annihilation is based on a book of the same name, the first entry in Jeff VanderMeer’s Southern Reach trilogy. Like so many books, ‘Annihilation’ has been called unfilmable; a one-hundred and ninety-two page eco-nightmare tone poem, smeared with dread. I wager it’s for this reason Garland – who began his career as a novelist – handles the rendering of ‘Annihilation’ from page to screen so tactfully, if not accurately. What we have here is a case of adaptation, as opposed to direct translation. Knowing the book is not tailored for straightforward conversion to screen, the story has been reworked into a visual entity that can, equivalently, not be transcribed back into words. Annihilation the movie is lean and dense and weird, a singular expression of cinematic language. Science fiction is often guilty of perpetuating the myth of our WEIRD narrow slice. WEIRD, as in the acronym Jared Diamond uses in The World Until Yesterday, to define the parameters of what we tend to talk about when we reference human nature and society (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic). Space becomes an extrapolation of the night sky, aliens at least vaguely resemble Earth’s creatures, and the sounds they produce are limited to audible frequencies. Are we so deluded to think the anthropomorphic perspective is arbiter of universal truth? Annihilation dissects, in the best way it can, what might happen if humans came into contact with a life form we have no reference point for making sense of. I think Garland recognises that science fiction can best broach these topics by operating within the bounds of dream logic. Where connections between images are lucidly drawn on the subjective level, and only to a finite degree beyond that. Annihilation goes for broke in this approach, clinging for dear life to the outside of words.

into the breach.jpg

“The cave you fear to enter, holds the treasure you seek.”

Humanity likes to ponder the metaphysical, it comes naturally. Debating the merits of divine avatars, conceiving of experiential planes that surpass the corporeal realm. Only once has humanity dabbled in the transcendent, leaving behind mortal coils to sit alongside the celestials. It was in 1917, the day Ernest Rutherford split the atom. A red letter day if there ever was one, tracing straight to the Trinity tests in New Mexico, and Robert Oppenheimer quoting his Bhagavad Gita in requiem for the moment humankind had ‘become death, the destroyer of worlds.’ If you’re trying to beckon the attention of gods, a nuclear bomb is a really good way to do it. If you want to draw humanity’s gaze, just show up unannounced and interrupt the status quo. There’s nothing wrong with science fiction addressing topics beyond human understanding, but a hurdle lies in making that weirdness accessible to the limited human perspective. When the filmmaker succeeds we rightly laud them as a genius. The ‘star gate’ sequence toward the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey earned Stanley Kubrick such praise. Atomic repercussions probed in episode eight of Twin Peaks: The Return are a similarly transcendent achievement of David Lynch’s, prophesying the cosmic doom of a nuclear era. In my humble opinion, the final twenty minutes of Annihilation deserve to share that same lofty pedestal; Garland’s film nestling somewhere between the intellectualism of Kubrick, and the raw feeling of Lynch. More on that later.

unknowable.jpeg

Confronting the self, the unknowable.

There’s a mystery at the core of Annihilation. Namely, what is the ‘Shimmer’? Where does it come from, what does it do, what does it want? The public knows of the Shimmer only as ‘Area X’, and believes it the site of ecological disaster. The Southern Reach agency – tasked with investigating the region – know that isn’t true, but they don’t know much beyond that. Area X could be an environmental anomaly, an extraterrestrial insurgent, a tear in the fabric of spacetime, or the manifestation of some divine intervention. Nothing is known, so nothing is off the table. Those who enter have no idea what to expect, so, naturally, neither does the audience. All we see is a place where physics breaks down at the cellular level, a deconstruction of life like a grand-scale, astrobiological agar plate. Memories materialise, consciousnesses transfer, bodies denature. The Shimmer is clearly mutagenic, demonstrated by impossible fauna and blood-chilling animal hybrids that would make Cronenberg proud. All the while, the film wisely neglects lingering on the howWhat matters is something unknowable arrives on Terran soil, and in seeking answers we tempt the fates and fall down a rabbit hole of new questions. Every soul who ventured into the Shimmer believed its enigma could be solved by reaching a lighthouse at the aberration’s centre.

annihilation-movie-image.jpg

As part of a truly immense body of work, G.K. Chesterton once wrote that the microscope is the only invention that ever made the world larger, and to this day he remains vindicated. From planes and trains to telescopes and the internet, new technology has condensed the workspace of the world and made human interaction a more tightly-knit affair. The microscope reverses this process, sampling the banal and blowing it up to the kaleidoscopic and extraordinary. Communities of organisms reside in pond water, pathogens and antibodies share the same square inch of dirt. What lies at the heart of the Shimmer is an entity not unlike a virus, existing in a state of flux between living and non-living but with a monstrous ability to alter the homeostasis of other living things. Within the microscopic universe – a domain of individual cells, bacterium, and genes – intent is an irrelevant concept. Smallpox was mankind’s greatest enemy for millennia, killing one of every three it infected before the advent of the microscope allowed us to locate and study the invisible murderer. Smallpox had no master plan, no evil plot to dominate the world or even a consciousness to conceive of such a thing. I found Annihilation’s Shimmer to be quite similar. It simply is, and does whatever it takes to survive, while humans scramble to outmanoeuvre a thing that cannot think but is somehow smarter than them. We think of parasitic relationships as inherently negative and evil because we identify with the host, even though humanity’s relationship with the Earth – like fleas carried by a rat – is just as parasitic. Annihilation calls to attention the utter randomness of our universe; how in the space of a lazy afternoon nature can reassert, to reclaim and reforge what man has erected in her stead.

Crocdecay

 

There comes a point in all films with a core mystery where it must lay its cards on the table and let audiences judge if the big reveal merits all the diegetic subterfuge. The twist can expand the potency of what came before, as in, say, Arrival; it may go the Interstellar route of blowing a good hand and leave us yearning for what could have been so much more; or it might prove to be an empty bluff, as with another recent Netflix drop, The Cloverfield Paradox. Those final twenty minutes inspired me to write about Annihilation because they provided a fourth option. A choice I’m sure has precedent, albeit none that immediately comes to mind: never reveal the hand. Like playing a video game until defeat is guaranteed, and the only option for avoiding it is to hit pause and leave the outcome hanging indefinitely in the balance. This choice will frustrate many for sure, but I cannot shake the notion that in context it’s a masterstroke. Annihilation has that trope-y scene where the scientist “figures it all out,” stares absent-mindedly into the distance and mumbles a quasi-extemporaneous explanation of everything that’s happened. And yet it doesn’t completely fit… There are numerous think-pieces outlining potential implications of Annihilation’s ending on its protagonist and the rest of the world, but I have no interest in relaying those or adding a theory here. To me this film moves beyond answers, rippling from thought to thought and carrying the audience along in a hypnotic daze through sound, music, picture and performance. I honestly cannot tell how complex or complete it is as a film. What I’m certain of is that Annihilation is not a mystery box, it’s a spiritual prompt. A piece of art that demands introspection to decipher its truths, not research. Above the body are the senses, above senses the mind, above the mind, intellect, and above intellect awaits salvation.

In this way, Annihilation owes a debt to Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker, which I felt compelled to revisit. The titular Stalker’s calling is to lead explorers into ‘the Zone’, a region beyond the inhabited borders of a world desolated by war and poverty. The Zone is a place created by a who-knows-what, within which exists a room where, if the rumours are true, one is granted a wish borne of innermost yearning. The Professor enters to ascertain the empiricism of a miracle, while the Writer wants to purchase inspiration, craving a firmer definition of elusive truth. The rumours also tell of the last person who made it to the room. A Teacher who got what he wanted most in this life, and hung himself as consequence. Stalker is a film about human desire, but it’s as much a film about depression and suicide, and what drives men to these ultimate acts of self-immolation. Like Stalker, Annihilation observes there is but one law to the universe, and that is impermanence. How self-destruction is intrinsic to life, how we all have the capacity for personal annihilation. They ponder what to do in the face of this devastating truism, and the barren revelation that some desires are not meant to be quenched.

annihilation-main

We might be through the fire, but we will never be the same.

 

Each of Annihilation’s characters lives with a different manifestation of self-destruction, all of them entering the Shimmer by choice as means of facing up to it. Dr. Ventress is engrossed in an existential battle/compliance with cancer. Like smallpox, or any virus, cancer does not care about your narrative or your toughness. It doesn’t care about bad timing. It’s your own body evolving against you and that’s fucking terrifying. The Shimmer is the same: life unchecked, metastasising and run amok. Meanwhile, the loss of a daughter to leukaemia forced Cass to grieve twice. Once for the little girl she’ll never see again, a second time for the old life she can never return to in the wake of that heartache. Anya’s outward charisma and carnal zest mask a struggle with alcoholism, epitomising a loss of control over one’s own body. Lena’s journey with depression is more complicated, because the hard reality of mental illness is it’s not a perceptible affliction, but the manifestation of hard-wired conditioning that snowballs from everyday traumas. Feeling unloved, unsafe or misunderstood adds up to induce pathologies that eventually put us in conflict with our own humanity. Lena pursues honour and decency as best she can – a former soldier turned biologist, now fighting to cure cancer – but feels guilty at her role in a duplicitous affair that drove her boyfriend, Kane, to a pilgrimage of his own into the Shimmer. Lena feels like the cancer of their relationship and ‘owes it to him’ to try and cure it. Which incites Annihilation’s haunting crescendo, as Lena enters the lighthouse to face the embodiments of her depression, and undergo a kind of entropy of the self. Lighthouses are beacons of safe harbour, see. To Virginia Woolf they were, more specifically, a motif for spiritual resolve and emotional guidance when we feel tossed around by the crashing waves of inner turmoil. A lighthouse is a solid and unmoving structure, but its light does move, gyrating through the night sky and shutting off for daylight. So, it’s simultaneously a symbol of stability, and of change… All I can say for certain is it’s not clear what part of Lena escapes.

josie.jpg

 

Through a scrim of overwhelming melancholia, I walk away from Annihilation affirmed by an ultimately holistic view of mankind’s self-destructive tendencies. I don’t see the film’s title citing a typical definition of ‘complete and total destruction’; I wager it points to the word’s significance in physics as a ‘conversion of matter into energy.’ Garland and his film recognise we are members of an endangered species. That none of us can survive, except, maybe, as something else. Here at last we have Tessa Thompson’s delicate Josie (above), who wears long-sleeved shirts to cover the self-inflicted scars on her arm. When Cass patly dismisses this as Josie’s attempt to ‘feel alive,’ I wanted to cry. I think people cut and continue out of addiction to the endorphins self-harm releases. It temporarily ceases sorrow but in the same foul stroke ferments a debilitating dependence. There comes a point when we can no longer dissociate our identity from all the trauma, guilt, and regret that sculpted it, meaning there is supreme honour in any pain that speaks of a desire to destroy it in ourselves and others. Tarkovsky’s Stalker knew that, while ephemeral, this hope is the purest expression of the freshness of being, for it can only reside in those who suffer, eager for the day when they will suffer no longer. That beyond the good and bad people there are the wretched, those devoid of hope, who are the ones we must care to elevate. Come the end of her time in the Shimmer, Josie welcomes alignment with whatever force mutates her cells, as flowers begin to bud from the wounds in her arms. Annihilation conveys in this way that should we survive what feels like immutable sadness, should we choose to read on with our story, something productive and beautiful may blossom from us. Something worth the pain of getting there. What a wonderful thing to suggest… I think it’s probably true.

poster.jpg

Appendix: It’s immensely exciting to me that so many eyes will be exposed to Annihilation because of the film’s international release deal with Netflix, almost certainly more than had it been released in theatres. What I’m not so supportive of is this growing trend that sees any project studios regard a straight-to-DVD write-off  being pawned to VOD services for a meagre return on investment (because they’re deemed subpar in quality, or lacklustre box office draws). Apparently the decision to sell the international rights was made after test-screenings deemed the film ‘too intellectual’ for general audiences. What a devastating state of affairs if true, reflecting the fears of movie studious that audiences no longer want to be challenged with their cinema. Paramount deserves kudos for financing this film – as well as mother! and Silence this past year – although I cannot fathom their being so asleep at the wheel that they failed to adequately support the obvious masterpiece they had on their hands. Guy Lodge wrote a bite-sized article for the Guardian about the wider issue of Netflix lapping up filmic scraps, while Dan Murrell at ScreenJunkies made a fantastic video summarising the specific quagmire surrounding Annihilation.

 

 

Beyond Good and Evil – Review of ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi ’ (dir. Rian Johnson)

**Heavy spoilers**

STRIKING THE BALANCE

For over three decades, the Star Wars saga was a collection of indie movies. During that time they were the vision of one man, an auteur in every sense of the word. In spite of ever-escalating budgets affording the cutting edge of special effects, the humble ambition of the first six Star Wars films was to foster a new kind of mythic tradition for the modern world. It’s reasonable to expect Star Wars under Disney’s tutelage will become yet another rote movie franchise, tactlessly shilled out year after year by a faceless corporate beast in order to print mountains of easy cash. To my immense relief – even after the savvy inversion of familiar concepts that was The Force Awakens – Episode VIII writer/director Rian Johnson (Brick, Looper) has made a Rian Johnson joint that just happens to have lightsabers and be called The Last Jedi. Johnson is now the only person besides George Lucas to have a solo writer/director credit on a Star Wars picture, and uses that autonomy to chart a bold new course. What he’s done with The Last Jedi will rattle the milieu of Star Wars’s perception in the culture for years to come.

Screen Shot 2017-12-18 at 21.44.09.png

>>>> TRAILER <<<<

The Force Awakens was a crowdpleaser designed to reintroduce us to the Star Wars universe. Put simply, The Last Jedi is the reinvention of that universe, upsetting everything we thought we knew. It feels distinct from The Force Awakens, not only in tone, but down to a markedly different filmic vocabulary. Acting autonomously from J.J. Abrams’s occasionally overbearing, kinetic filmmaking, Johnson constructs Jedi around a Classical form. Much of the non-CGI photography is locked to a tripod or dolly, leaning heavier on close-ups, and paying more attention to composition in the wides than can be sustained by a camera in constant motion. This is fitting for a film that delves deeper into character and cultivates a more sedate expressionism, particularly in comparison to The Force Awakens’s mimicry of 80s Spielbergian sublimity. Johnson challenges the series to be elevated in its ideas and images.

Breaking from tradition, Episode VIII picks up moments after where VII left off, foregoing the time jump precedented by all previous instalments. However, echoing the structure of The Empire Strikes Back, The Last Jedi weaves together parallel storylines before reuniting its characters for the close. The central narrative pillar – around which these vines of subplot ascend to apotheosis – is Rey’s time spent training with Luke Skywalker, and probing her mysterious connection to the Force and Kylo Ren. That is where I want to focus.

leia poe

The Heroes of Duty

finn rose

The Heroes of Choice

reyluke

The Heroes of Destiny

BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL

Orson Welles once intoned, if you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story. The Force Awakens began with the words, ‘Luke Skywalker has vanished,’ followed Rey running with that thread of intrigue, and concluded all well and good with Luke seemingly restored from obscurity. And yet, there was that look on his face. That look of not wanting to be disturbed… In one of The Last Jedi’s quieter moments, Luke boards the Millennium Falcon and soberly roams its corridors. Old companions are no longer there, his old life resigned to memory. This ghost wandering the past is not the Luke Skywalker we know; not a legend who peaked, only to fall upon hard times. It’s a man who never came close to his mythic potential, and in the twilight of life asks, is that all there is? In The Last Jedi, Luke Skywalker is disaffected and embittered, desperately searching for the legendary hero who shares his name, having never lived up to the billing. Seeing him encumbered by the toll of long years, it’s clear this is the first Star Wars movie not just about growing up, but about growing old. Luke had his happy ending on Endor, at the close of Return of the Jedi.

IMG_5593.JPG

Luke’s rejection of the Force and abnegation of responsibility is profound within the context of the saga as one organism. If the Prequels marked the Jedi as an entity falling foul of dogmatic practices, and the Original trilogy offered Luke as the hope of that institution’s rebirth (himself mentored by the old masters), then the Sequel trilogy now charts him recognising the flaws of the Jedi’s ill-fated doctrine and choosing not to be complicit in another failure. Nietzsche accused past philosophers of founding grand metaphysical systems upon the premise that the good man is the opposite of the evil man, rather than the two being different expressions of the same basic impulses. The parallels between this and the Force – particularly as explained to us in the past – should be obvious. Star Wars replaced moral absolutes of good and evil with the less discriminate ‘light side’ and ‘dark side’. The change founded on the principle that any light source will, invariably, cast a shadow upon interaction with the physical world. The Last Jedi finds that ideology wanting, and Luke undecided whether his apostasy is an act of liberation or damnation. All he knows for certain is that the Jedi have no ownership over the light, while the dark teasingly offers something we want. For this reason the Star Wars Episodes are – perhaps unwittingly – shapeshifting into an exploration of the impossible quest for epistemological truth in a world composed of so many disparate opinions. It’s hard not to be driven mad by the blithe hypocrisy peppering our news and social media; an experience not unlike Luke’s confrontation with the Jedi’s dismal history. Nevertheless, the film wants us to draw solace from the fact that it’s no sign of good health to be well adjusted in a sick society.

NEW ORDER

Despite being stranded on a desolate planet since childhood, Rey heard the impressive myths of Luke Skywalker and expected an easy path to greatness under his tutelage. However, Rey does not represent new hope to Luke, as Luke did to Ben Kenobi. She represents all that he dreads. Like Ben Solo her power is uncontainable, and she is probably untrainable. After some convincing from an aptly-timed home video projected by R2-D2, Luke agrees to educate her, if only to prove why the Jedi must end. He seeks to impart three lessons.

luke whills.jpg

Luke with the Journals of the Whills, sacred Jedi texts.

Rey’s first exercise under Luke serves to teach her that the Force is neither good nor bad, rather a kind of potential energy between two polar extremes. We’re led to believe Rey is the lighter counterbalance to Kylo Ren’s darkness, a symbiosis that allows their communication scenes. I’ve seen angered reactions to the logistics of these conversations by people cheaply calling it ‘ForceTime.’ I think there’s deep profundity to a Force that now acts as genuine connective tissue between souls on other sides of the galaxy, beyond a quasi-mystical “energy that binds us”. Need I remind you the last movie was literally called The Force Awakens. This sentiment is echoed in Rey, in powers we’ve never seen before, and in a small orphan boy on Canto Bight, who force-pulls a broom close and starts to sweep, before being distracted by the infinite promise of a night sky. It’s my favourite last shot in all of Star Wars. I love that the lowest of the low amongst a society of rich elite – vapid and repellent in comparison – are those with the deepest sense of place and purpose within the universe. There was a time your last name had to be Skywalker to be worthy of legend, but now Star Wars has the potential to mean so much more. Searching for answers about her parentage in a dark side chasm, Rey encounters some kind of Lacanian mirror. The two shadowy wraiths of her parents merge, leaving only herself reflected back because it doesn’t matter who they are or were. Being a Skywalker is no longer important to this story. Now, even if your name is Rey… just Rey… the future is whatever one you write.

Rey is unburdened by legacy, while the weight of a name hangs over Ben Solo. Less angsty and emo this time around, Adam Driver presents Ben as more credibly conflicted about his transformation into a tool of evil. Within the same scenes Driver shifts between selling Ben Solo’s vulnerability, to hinting at Kylo Ren’s terrifying potential should the maturity of his emotions match that of his powers. In this galaxy of few Force users, where Kylo is considered descendant of gods, this mysterious girl, a lowly scavenger, emerges from obscurity to overpower his connection with the Force and wield Anakin Skywalker’s lightsaber. He hates this girl. He envies her, but he also sees something worthy of respect. And even that eats Ben up inside because he craves that respect so much he has little to spare. Still, there’s an affinity to Rey, a shared feeling of parental abandonment. It fosters an authentic, tense chemistry between two lonely souls connecting on the level of, I don’t know the way forward, do you? Scared and directionless, maybe together they learn family is more than blood.

kylo.jpg

Kylo Ren spends almost all of The Last Jedi unmasked, exposed.

FULL CIRCLE

The Last Jedi is about Star Wars, like The Force Awakens was, except intentionally subversive of tropes and expectations. Rian Johnson has done this with all his previous films, and because he’s such a fastidious filmmaker pretty much everything that happens in The Last Jedi contributes to the desired effect. Everyone in the story is trying to eradicate some aspect of their past, and Johnson attempts to do the same thing with Star Wars itself. Central to the movie is a theme of legends and legacy. How we should be wary of holding on too tight to the rose-tinted past if it means failing to accept the present. This is Luke’s second lesson for Rey, an enduring example of which comes when he force-projects his astral form on Crait to confront Kylo Ren. This is the hero moment we want, without actually being a hero moment. Luke fights back without becoming yet another murderer, projecting the ideal illusion of what everyone in the movie – as well as those watching the movie – imagines when they think of “Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master.” He looks young, untouchable, immortal. The act is simultaneously a triumph of pacifism, indicative of immense power, and an incredibly inventive set piece in its own right. He takes an impossible amount of laser fire and fights Kylo to an impasse long enough for his friends to escape harm. Luke shows through action that the mantra infused within the new Rebellion holds true. Rose immortalises that the only way we can ever truly win is ‘not fighting what we hate, saving what we love.’ Finn’s final moment of transformation into a warrior of good comes when Rose outlines to him that the moral imperative behind fighting against something, versus striving for something, is everything.

The heroes of the Original trilogy were a Princess, a Scoundrel, and a Jedi by birthright. Now, the scoundrel is dead, the princess is an exhausted general, and the Jedi is a bitter old man whose life amounted to passing-on the chance at redemption. Our new generation of heroes consists of a military deserter, a skilled pilot still learning how to lead, and a scavenger abandoned by uncaring parents. This new generation is one born of disappointment, and the need to fight a war those old heroes couldn’t win. No one should have to do that. We still worship those who gave their lives across two World Wars so we wouldn’t have to do that. And yet here they stand, a Resistance now numbering less than a dozen facing to stare down the dark prince Ben Solo, a poster-boy of fallen legacies at the head of a tyrannical regime. Luke’s short time spent teaching Rey compels him to learn all over again. He learns the Jedi are useful as symbols, if not actors. He learns that making peace with oneself is an Ouroborosian cycle, leading back to where one originated, albeit altered by the journey. Prior to Luke’s ascension with the Force, he glimpses the twin suns of Tatooine. They’ve always represented division. The distinction between who you are, and who you want to be. But as he fades into the aether those twin suns become one, pouring light through where he sat and into the Jedi temple. It’s an indelible image. Luke leaves of his own volition, made whole at the last. He never got to teach Rey his third, final, and most important lesson, but imparts it to the audience by proxy of his sacrifice. A cause worth dying for, is not always a cause worth killing for.

rey1.jpg

The Force will not die with the Jedi. The Resistance will not die on the crystalline flats of Crait. Star Wars will not die with Han, Luke, and Leia. Rian Johnson loves Star Wars so much he wants to burn it all down and let something new grow. Hope is resilient, and will spring even from salted earth. Rey is that new hope; green to the ways of the Force but innately attuned with the empathy central to Jedi tenets. In the penultimate scene, Rey cradles Anakin and Luke’s old lightsaber, freshly cleaved in two. The symbols we held dear are being stripped of their power. And yet, the azure blue kyber crystal inside remains unbroken… The spirit of Star Wars lives on. Johnson doesn’t quite subscribe to Kylo Ren’s “let the past die” philosophy, but insists the old must adapt to the new, more so than the new be beholden to the past. The Last Jedi is a rallying cry in that respect, through the deaths of Snoke and Luke fervently maintaining that even the mightiest can fall, and at some point they should. Look no further than Yoda – the wisest character in Star Wars lore – summoning a bolt of lighting to destroy the Jedi temple, as Luke was afraid to. Two ageing figureheads of the old Star Wars sit side by side, wilfully watching the past go up in flames. Message received, loud and clear. They are what we grow beyond.

The_Last_Jedi_poster.jpg

A Brave New World – Review of ‘Blade Runner 2049’ (dir. Denis Villeneuve)

A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct.

So reads the first line of an excerpt from the ‘Manual of Muad’Dib’, inaugurating author Frank Herbert’s Dune. Herbert’s work was a milestone in science-fiction’s ‘New Wave’ of the 60s, which saw writers stretch their genre toward psychological drama and surrealism. This era later saw the publication of Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (1968), a soft-sci-fi masterpiece that would act as the basis for the original Blade Runner in 1982. Central to Dick’s novel, as well as Ridley Scott’s movie, is the question of what makes a fake. Moreover, if a fake seems authentic, does it even matter?

After thirty-five years, we push beyond the beginning of this story, as Blade Runner 2049 [hereafter, ‘2049’] dives deeper into the ideas of the original, but springboards into new territory. We leave an original world poised for revolution, because where Blade Runner sought to blur the lines between man and machine, 2049 imagines a world where the scales are tipping in favour of post-human civilisation.

Screen Shot 2017-10-07 at 13.12.31.png

>>>> TRAILER <<<<

It took five versions for Ridley Scott to get Blade Runner ‘right’ – or at least consistent with his re-reading of the source material – concluding with 2007’s Final Cut. Similarly, it took around five viewings before Blade Runner finally clicked with me. Three of those dedicated to just getting through it in one sitting. In fact, I’d wager anyone who says they fell in love with Blade Runner first time is full of shit; the film is impenetrable, wanting neither respect nor love, and thus gruellingly inspiring both. 2049 is similarly weighty but more accessible – a Rorschach versus a blank slate – channelling its large themes directly through character, resolving in a far more personal and emotionally satisfying way than Blade Runner’s predominantly intuited plot.

Scott’s Final Cut suggests he didn’t realise what made his movie great, as while the film is tonally and structurally pristine, the heavy implication that Deckard is a replicant undermines the character’s epiphany that artificial life has value equivalent to a human’s. He initially refers to replicants as ‘it’, before absconding with one he’s fallen in love with. Retired and devoid of purpose, Deckard knows he is human, and he also knows that’s not enough to be untroubled. The ultimate maturity of Blade Runner – epitomised in Roy Batty’s final scene – was recognising that the question of whether someone is a replicant or not doesn’t matter nearly as much as whether they hold life sacred. As the Vangelis score swirls and Deckard watches the replicant Batty die, releasing a captured dove into the air, his soul may as well be escaping to the heavens. It’s one of the most transcendent moments in all of cinema. Batty felt – hell, he knew – that he was alive, communicating that something created instead of born can still value existence, and that’s the only requisite state for what we define as humanity.

K car.jpg

‘To be born is to have a soul, I guess,’ K mumbles to his overseer, Madam. ‘You’ve been getting on fine without one,’ is the response.

Ryan Gosling plays a new blade runner, Officer KD6-3.7, later, Joe (as in K. Dick, or Kafka’s avatar of modern alienation from The Castle), channelling some Phillip Marlowe into his stoic performance from Drive to make boredom look like passion. This is perfect for an individual-sans-identity engaged in an osmotic relationship with a system eager to keep him neutered. He is restrained and quiet for most of the film, lending spectacular impact to the moments he, justifiably, loses his cool and explodes. K has a paramour called Joi, a hologram-for-hire who likes to play house, seemingly out of choice. A limited-lifespan replicant himself, K welcomes the companionship and believes he’s in love with Joi, while also recognising that what he thinks of as love is a construct, implanted alongside memories to keep him docile. In a fundamental sense, self-awareness is what makes us human. But what does that mean for self-awareness of one’s inhumanity? For example, the human experience of love is just a byproduct of neurotransmitter secretion, while for a machine it’s the intended function of preset coding. In this way, 2049 expands on the original’s central enigma, treading a line where Harrison Ford’s older Deckard considers he might be a replicant – indecisively insisting he ‘knows what is real’ – insofar as he cannot be certain of his reality, nor the origin point of his identity. There’s never a way to objectively confirm if the real world is truly there, thus, reality can only ever be our subjective interpretation of it.

visual.jpg

K with Joi. But not his Joi.

2049 is not directly extrapolated from one of Dick’s novels, but is still the brainchild of Blade Runner scribe, Hampton Fancher, and is so clearly the outcome of an assemblage of talents doing the best work of their careers because they are knowingly competing against a masterpiece. Roger Deakins’s cinematography eschews Cronenweith’s chiaroscuro noir lighting in favour of something softer, at least as far as interiors are concerned (pay attention to K gradually exposed to less whites, and more vivid colour as his worldview starts to splinter). Those interiors, from production designer Dennis Gassner, are lurid sets clashing surgical minimalism against industrial decay to manifest the uncomfortable numbness of a neon-suffocated populace. Director Denis Villeneuve orchestrates this expertise to reaffirm he, not Christopher Nolan, is the Kubrick of our time. His filmography is the perfect foundation for Blade Runner’s subject matter, in its conflation of what is real with what isn’t. If you’ve seen his post-Incendies Hollywood movies, you’ll recognise that each one can be somewhat deciphered simply by adding “who is/are the real” before the title. When Villeneuve’s androids dream, they’re electric dreams of a desire to be human. But the humanity they yearn for is a faded notion, buried in the lone and level sands of wasteland where America’s great cities once stood; the desert is itself an allusion to the Baudrillardian simulacrum, a copied unreality – like a dream – lacking the substance of the real thing.

ozymandias

An Ozymandias-like ‘shattered visage… stamped on these lifeless things’.

2049 is itself a kind of lucid dream, blending analogue nostalgia with world-weary melancholy to prophesy dystopia along a road untaken. Iconographically, the film cries in anguish like Charlton Heston at the close of Planet of the Apes, as one might despair over a denatured world we could have saved if action was taken sooner. The climate of this alternate Earth has only got more brutalist and toxic in the thirty years between films, making it a fitting homestead for replicants, mankind’s own simulacra. Although, as we learn from Milton’s Paradise Lost, preferable it is to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

landscape

Mainstream audiences will not swarm to Blade Runner 2049, and many of those who do will leave disappointed. It’s as uncommercial as it is ponderous, albeit uncompromising and purposeful, barely wasting a moment of it’s expansive runtime on extraneous story fat, or a concept lacking in consequence. 2049 may not be the genre revolutionary its forerunner deservedly became, but still stands as a true monument of science-fiction. Decisively chasing complicated answers to simple questions, 2049 will be mulled over and dissected for the opposite reason fans paw over the original, while retroactively making it better. In contrast to Blade Runner’s minimalism, there is so much in 2049 to analyse I’ve barely attempted to get into specifics, making them twin nodes of an openly-interpretable binary system, feeding off one another’s brilliance. Ultimately, 2049 draws inspiration from the idea that artificial intelligence poses a significantly inferior threat when compared to a misuse of human intelligence, abiding by the time-honoured tradition that real art should be a reflection of the world the way it is, or our fear of what it could become.

Blade-Runner-2049-Ryan-Gosling-Ana-De-Armas.jpg

Joi steps out into the world for the first time.

 

A central theme of Dune is ecology, particularly our relationship with the climate, and nature’s impact on human nature. The character, Kynes, says the purpose of ecology is understanding consequences, raising questions over humanity’s potential within a manipulated environment. He croons that ‘beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is as true of humans in the finite space of a planetary ecosystem as it is of gas molecules in a sealed flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive.’ I return to Dune partly because it’s Denis Villeneuve’s next project, and I feel it will feed off Blade Runner 2049 just as 2049 is fortified by Villeneuve’s previous films. The best works read differently as the world reforms around them; Dune is as relevant today amidst growing fossil fuel concerns as ever. 2049 has that same timeless, malleable quality, albeit in relation to mankind’s anaesthetising interconnectivity, which is itself breeding a spiteful collective unconscious.

blade-runner-2049.jpg

‘It was late evening when K. arrived. The village lay deep in snow. There was nothing to be seen of Castle Mount, for mist and darkness surrounded it’ – The Castle

In The Meaning of It All, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman writes of his visit to a Hawaiian Buddhist temple, where the Bhikkhu told him, ‘to every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell.’ Feynman adds, ‘so it is with science.’ It’s an arresting epistemological kōan, suggesting everything we learn through science is a potential boon, but if misused will lead us astray. Feynman co-developed the first atomic bomb at Los Alamos, so he should be an authority on this matter; the same technology capable of providing cheap, clean energy for the entire planet also has the potential to bring it ruin. Dune’s world of Arrakis is arid and barren save for the invaluable spice melange, an intimation that there’s always some treasure amidst the desolation. 2049 subtly posits that behind the curtains of our prejudices and self-superiority, perhaps hope lies in designed artificial beings given more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses; those who, according to the Tyrell Corporation, can be ‘more human than human.’ Blade Runner 2049’s vision of a proximate near-future is outlandish, sure, but also vaguely and terrifyingly recognisable in its hellish combination of high technology and low life; at once bleak and beautiful, like tears in rain.

Or, snow

memory.jpg

Dr. Ana Stelline’s memory emporium.

Halfway through the film we see K consider snowflakes melting on his hand, coinciding with a reveal he might be more than just another replicant. In the final scene he repeats the act, as if testing he’s alive after the revelation he is indeed a replicant after all. Joi started calling K a ‘real boy’ as he grappled with the potential of real humanity, drawing analogies to a Pinocchio figure. Pinocchio is good, works hard, studies, yet stays imprisoned within a wooden husk. Devotion to looking after his father is what finally transforms him into a real boy, so when K takes Deckard to the old blade runner’s hidden daughter, Dr. Ana Stelline – earlier believing he was that progeny, and not the cover-up – K earns human status in every way that matters. Locked away because of immune deficiency, Ana creates replicant memory implants designed to elicit emotions she’s never felt. Consider how digital snow from one such ‘memory’ passes straight through Ana’s hand, in a manner equal but opposite to K’s interaction, or the hologram Joi’s euphoria at disappearing into the rain.

Replicant or not, that we are born just to die makes existence somewhat futile. Defiant resistance to that fact, in dedication to the collective wellbeing, is the truest indicator we have a ‘soul’. Replicant or not, Blade Runner 2049’s characters just want to own their chains.

Don’t we all?

tumblr_static_26osk19e9qck84sgcwogsw88w.jpg

Enemy at the Gates – Review of ‘Dunkirk’ (dir. Christopher Nolan)

I’ve been to Dunkerque – as written without anglicised spelling – walked along the ten-mile stretch of beach, and visited the nearby war cemetery. When the tide goes out, there is over a kilometre of bay sloping towards the Channel, and in places you can still see the wreckage of sunk Royal Navy ships. Even standing on the famous Mole, facing the endless sand dunes, it’s hard to fully consider that for nine days, between May 26th and June 4th 1940, roughly 340,000 troops were evacuated from a foreign field that is now forever England.

Christopher Nolan has my perpetual appreciation for the simple fact that while films like Interstellar and Inception are flawed, he is the only director with the clout in Hollywood to get these original, high-budget, high-conceptual movies made. Dunkirk is the story of the everyman’s muted heroism in the face of titanic odds – of people at the centre of history looking out, unaware they are shaping it – and there was not an American in sight, on screen or in reality. Make no mistake, it is a miracle that the ‘miracle of Dunkirk’ has been given this treatment, and the result is no less than Nolan’s magnum opus.

Trailer

>>>>> TRAILER <<<<<

This latest effort stuffs you in the soldier’s sodden boots even better than standing where they stood. Spielberg depicted savagery at Normandy; Malick showed us poetry in the Pacific; Coppola owns Vietnam. Now, Nolan shows us apocalyptic desolation at what feels like the end of the world, stressing that the only true glory in war is surviving it. It’s not a film about the blood and guts of close-quarters conflict, or even the toll war can take on soldiers. Uniform heavy with water, nerves frayed, a man removes his equipment and walks into the grey, churning sea. He’s clearly trying to swim home and must know it is impossible. But then, so is the vague concept of salvation. Dunkirk showcases that stripped of all else, a certain death chosen is preferable to one administered by forces beyond our control.

Bar his 1998 micro-budget indie, Following, Dunkirk is Nolan’s shortest movie to date, and exquisitely minimalist with dialogue. Plot heavy Nolan films of yore such as Inception, Interstellar, and The Dark Knight required heaps of exposition to unfurl their winding narratives and high-concepts. Here we enter in media res, the stage set, the bullets firing, the clock already ticking. The formal experiments of Inception, Memento, and Interstellar were all leading to this: an impressionistic, experimentally prismatic structure, that is so inexhaustibly suspenseful it feels like the third-act payoff of a longer war epic. This is because Nolan knows the filmic language of suspense must occasionally be pedantic in order to magnify every action and reaction. The skirmishes – specifically the dogfighting – aren’t traditional encounters, they’re a game of chess. Spitfires and Messerschmitts don’t engage in audacious aerial gymnastics because the real planes couldn’t pull those forces. The pilots have to anticipate the enemy’s next manoeuvre to have a chance of keeping pace, allow the gun sight lead ahead of the target, and conserve ammunition. Their planes are equipped with only 240 rounds, and an hour’s worth of fuel. Should the gauge of either drop to zero, odds of survival plummet the same.

boat and planes

“There’s no hiding from this, son. We have a job to do.”

The main character is a lowly squaddie called Tommy, the archetypal name of a British soldier dating back to 1743 but immortalised in the first of Rudyard Kipling’s Barrack Room Ballads (1892):

‘For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck ‘im out, the brute!”

But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;

An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;

An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool – you bet that Tommy sees!’

In fact, calling Tommy the main character is a straight up lie. Tommy may as well be anyone on that beach, or trapped out at sea, or dogfighting in the clouds. There is no one main character in this tale of Pyrrhic defeat; newcomer Fionn Whitehead is equally important as A-listers Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy, an Oscar winner in Mark Rylance, and a global pop superstar in Harry Styles. I cannot recall a more unselfish ensemble of actors, no one stealing the limelight, communally evoking the idea that suffering is egalitarian. Anyone during wartime might suddenly confront the imminent promise of death, alone and afraid, clueless about what is happening, and why to them. For this reason Dunkirk presents a very subjective interpretation of the battleground, trauma wreaking havoc with the individuals’ perception of time. Each of the three vantage points is a largely autonomous tableau, organised in a kind of triptych mosaic so only the audience can see the complete picture.

propaganda.jpg

“We don’t need civilians, where are the destroyers?” // “They’re saving them. For the next battle.”

In recent years Nolan has developed an obsession with immersion, which he satiates by slapping IMAX cameras where they’re not supposed to go, shooting as much as physically possible in-camera, and pursuing the richest sound spectrum of any filmmaker working today. Immersion really is the name of the game here, not character, plot, or story (which is character moving through plot). Hans Zimmer’s score is yet another thumping achievement of booming brass, oscillating synth, and scratching strings. For the most part though, Nolan relies less on Inception-like “BWAAAAHHHHs” for sonic engagement, instead diverting attention to minute details of sound design. Loose screws rattle in a cockpit, aircraft bullets vibrate the entire hull as they eject, and diving Luftwaffe Stukas are first identified not by visual, but by a primal offscreen howl as they commit to visiting death on soldiers below. It’s virtual-reality without the headset, total cinematic saturation with an iron-willed emphasis on war as experienced as opposed to war as strategised. I can only imagine it depicted unflatteringly by any medium other than IMAX, with it’s proprietary sound systems. Christopher Nolan makes films where IMAX is not just an upgrade, but a necessity. Dunkirk hurls an emphatic fuck you in the general direction of philistine masses streaming films to their phones.

beach

“Well done, lad.” // “Well done? All we did was survive…” // “And that’s enough.”

Every act of reinvention is, first of all, an act of deconstruction. Dunkirk breaks new ground along with all the rules of a war picture, turning defeat into monumental triumph. Dunkirk may be Nolan’s shortest movie but this helps to make it his most potent. He eschews politics – refusing to cut away to generals looking at a map of encroaching forces – the magnitude of the situation instead felt by the image of a hundred-thousand men standing still and helpless in the wind and rain, with nothing to do but wait for enemy bombs to fall on their position, and pray they hit someone else, anyone else. What blew me away most was that we never see the Germans. Nazis are the ultimate antagonist because their evil transcends whatever story they are part of. Here, their snipers pick off Allies who stray too far from the beach, their U-boats torpedo Navy Destroyers, their aircraft constantly arc overhead. For Dunkirk’s entire runtime they are out of sight, but never out of mind. We never see the Germans (never so much as hear someone say ‘Nazi’), who are referred to in opening titles only as ‘the enemy,’ transforming them into a uniquely existential threat. On so many levels, by not trying to be a film that says something, Dunkirk achieves a timeless quality. It immediately slots seamlessly into that after-hours billing on TCM between the likes of Tora! Tora! Tora! and Bridge on the River Kwai; legitimately unlike any other war film, albeit assuredly navigating between the heart-pounding, the heartwarming, and the heartbreaking. The most indelible image, from a film awash with stunning photography, arrives in the final moments: Tom Hardy’s Herculean RAF pilot watches on as his abandoned Spitfire goes up in flames. Awaiting capture, years of imprisonment, and the uncertain future of his country, he torched it himself in a final act of defiance; like all the comrades of Dunkirk, a man who cares little about himself in relation to the greater good, delivering a message to the enemy that as long as one Briton remains, surrender is not an option.

queues.jpg

Nothing screams “British,” quite like queueing

The early months of World War Two could so easily have heralded its end. Were it not for the British Expeditionary Force’s acquiescence before a seemingly divine act of deliverance, the Blitz could have been Hitler’s immediate, unchallenged invasion of the mainland. The Western world might have plunged into unending night, and the history books in which we read about it all may have been printed in German. Dunkirk is the story of the little man. In their little ships, with their little guns and little hope, but big, beating hearts. To this day the question remains, what happened there? Was it defeat? A victory? What is certain is that it was a turning point, the symbolic moment when the British Bulldog spirit was permanently etched into our collective consciousness. It’s because of Dunkirk we have that backs-against-the-wall belligerence, the unshakeable belief that our darkest days will be followed by our finest hours. Dunkirk is humble British sensibility on the Hollywood scale, concerned less with heroics, more so our immense capacity to endure.

POSTER.jpg

Dear White People – Review of ‘Get Out’ (dir. Jordan Peele)

Jordan Peele is no stranger to combining biting racial satire with horror tropes. See this Key and Peele racist zombie sketch <<<<<

To say Get Out plays like an extended Key and Peele bit is no slight, as the two comics have shown themselves to be masters of the setup, turn, and payoff all within the constraints of a few minutes. The intricately layered script works on multiple levels to reward rewatching, although the crucial reason for Get Out being so good probably stems from the production’s fear that when a film tackling race issues in a subversive manner goes wrong, it bombs hard. Resultantly, close attention has clearly been paid in order to ensure the film never strays far from the Thin Blue Line demarcating tone and message. Nothing falls flat, every ‘moment’ lands with aplomb. Get Out is easily the best experience I have had as part of an audience: we gasped at every twist, cheered every time an evil character bit the dust, and guffawed at every punchline. In comedy, prevailing wisdom states we laugh hardest at things we know to be true, no matter how taboo; Get Out manages to extract uneasy laughs out of its many interracial interactions, primarily through their nascent awkwardness within the politically correct world of 2017. You cannot help but question why you’re laughing.

Screen Shot 2017-03-30 at 15.28.41

TRAILER <<<<<

I personally believe Get Out has to be one of, if not the greatest film about black struggle because it transcends the typical heavy-handed biopics about historical slave figures. While the pulpy Django Unchained depicts the perversity of America’s “peculiar institution” with far more clarity that 12 Years A Slave, the slave narrative in general finds a certain protection in that it took place so long ago. Get Out succeeds because Peele cleverly realised that genre would be the best mode to tell this story – namely horror – because fear is the pervasive element in daily life of the marginalised. Get Out is as funny as it is scary. Part horror, satire, and psychological thriller. Chris’s best friend, Rod, is the character you beg for in every horror film, one who warns the protagonist to the queer nature of proceedings while everyone else is seemingly withholding information for plot convenience. As a longtime watcher of the Lena Dunham series Girls, the casting of Alison Williams spoke to me with a very meta cultural relevance; that show has been derided for its lack of racial diversity, and for the (intentionally) immature way its characters deal with race. In Girls, Williams plays Marnie, a quintessential young white American woman who naively believes everything will always be okay because broader social injustices have never affected her; a hollow shell of beauty disguising the promise of vapid self-absorption. Here, she plays a similar role as Chris’s girlfriend, Rose Armitage, the whitest white girl that ever white-ed. On a gut level she is immediately and uncomfortably cloying in her innocuously bigoted slips of the tongue, for which Chris repeatedly apologises himself, irrationally insisting she is not implicated in her family’s racism.

drinks.jpg

Meet the Parents

Racism is a vague term that generalises any human interaction regarding race, both on the micro and macro level. The version that immediately comes to mind is in the form of prejudice, or active discrimination. While events for Chris in Get Out do devolve to the point of interracial violence, the racism tackled by Peele is primarily the benign kind made more severe by its nauseatingly sincere insincerity. At one point Rose’s father, Dean, tells Chris he ‘woulda voted Obama for a third term if [he] could’, while a partygoer – a former golf pro – tries to connect with Chris’s blackness by triumphantly exclaiming, ‘I know Tiger!’; it’s these aesthetically harmless olive branches which turn Chris taciturn through disbelief, and warp what should be a peaceful weekend getaway into a mazing navigation of social eggshells. Ever since Obama became U.S. President, race has been somewhat swept under the rug, as if talking about it will summon it, like saying ‘Candyman’ three times into the mirror. The perpetuated myth is that we live in a post-racial world. “If the President is black, how can there be racism?” Well, Trump has replaced Obama as President – proving that orange is indeed the new black – and has incited an open resurgence of bigotry in recent months that Jordan Peele could not have anticipated while making his film.

peele.jpg

Jordan Peele directs a scene.

Thus, Get Out is not an attack on racists, but an attack on progressives. The friends of Rose’s parents are not archetypical racists per se, in fact they seem to be staunch liberals who genuinely find black culture and blackness in general fascinatingly cool. To a degree they are envious of it, particularly the perceived genetic superiority of black athleticism, alluded to by Dean Armitage’s story of his own father, who lost out on the chance to join the 1936 US Olympic sprint team because of Jesse Owens. From this basis of jealousy, Get Out argues that slavery continues today through other means, and that history repeats itself in different eras and bodies. Race as a concept was, in many ways, invented as a result of slavery. The appropriation of those with black skin by those with white skin, for purposes of manual labour, created an overt class division. Although not set in America’s Antebellum South, theft of black bodies pervades both the action and subtext. Just as black athletes are taken from their communities and exploited in sports for the financial benefit of white benefactors, a blind white art dealer buys Chris at auction for his healthy eyes, an obvious allusion to white liberals who profess they “don’t see colour”. Other brazen imagery is frequent: Chris literally saves himself from the operation by picking cotton – in the form of chair stuffing – which he can use to plug his ears and eliminate the audiovisual threat of Missy Armitage’s hypnosis. In the final scene – as Chris finishes off his would-be assailants and makes his escape from the house – it is the sudden appearance of a police car that had my heart in my throat more so than any other moment of dread. As part of any other horror film this situation would be a source of relief, but here it feels like the culminating act of damnation. We fear after everything Chris has done to free himself, he will be yet another unarmed black victim shot as the result of a misunderstanding.

hypnosis.jpg

Chris locked in place as the hypnosis takes hold.

During the hypnosis scenes, Chris stares at a 2D representation of his 4D world as he sinks into the ‘sunken place’, an inspired, haunting image resonant of Afrofuturism, where his mind has been abducted and forced to be passenger in the body. Until the first hypnosis scene, everything at the Armitage estate is relatively benign and Chris is, at worst, the victim of some peculiar micro-aggressions which can be explained away by Rose’s assertion that her parents are ‘lame’. It is only after Missy gets in Chris’s head that more sinister events unfold; Chris even admits that since the hypnosis he has been ‘thinking awful thoughts’. While we are led to believe these are feelings of guilt at failing to help his mother – the victim of a hit and run – I could not escape the notion that the unfolding horror post-hypnosis is Chris’s mind projecting onto his environment. He sees what some subconscious part of him wants to see, and thus the film operates as a very literal exploration of black fear, and not only an outlandish pastiche. Relatedly, Chris being unable to kill Rose, despite her being chief architect of his entrapment, speaks of his black guilt in credence to branches of scholarly historiography that contend black people – to some extent – perpetuate their own misery through self-fulfilling prophecies and the blaming of white people for their eternal subjugation in the social hierarchy. None of this at all compromises Get Out‘s enjoyability or undermines the importance of its message, rather it actually adds a superb layer of devil’s-advocating nuance which only reinforces Peele’s achievement.

parents.jpg

Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener shine as the easy-to-hate Armitage’s.

The film never succumbs to the urge to preach ethics and morality; Jordan Peele is married to a white woman – comedian Chelsea Peretti – and never expresses any overt hatred of whiteness through his direction. We are ALL Chris while watching the movie, so Get Out serves as a conversation catalyst, an eye-opener. It doesn’t suggest we shouldn’t do something, just to be mindful of what we do and why we do it. Get Out may be deemed a postmodern social movie, but it simultaneously acts as a stylistic throwback to gender thrillers like Rosemary’s Baby. Baby is about women’s rights, albeit veiled by mystery, just as Get Out is about race, cloaked in horror. Peele slowly winds up the tension, pulling apart a rubber-band of audience expectations and never allowing it to snap; wrestling it wider and wider until we know the break is coming, before holding and holding right at the point where we expect it to give in. Peele rightly realises true terror lies within that awkward interval between discomfort and catharsis. The film is Hitchcockian in its entrapment within the existential terror of race. Take a big social issue and blow up the discomfort level, and you get a horror film that plays on the strains of human interaction. Hitchcock was the rare horror auteur who understood the medium not only for its ability to shock, but for its capacity to reconcile underlying human tensions through suspense. Jordan Peele exercises this same creative muscle, bringing interracial conflict into harmony by elevating micro-aggressions to the forefront of the conversation.

brother.jpg

Chris’s suspicions are first aroused by the whitest black guy he’s ever met.

Get Out is precisely the kind of movie over which the liberal partygoers on the Armitage estate would pour their adoration. Likewise, the very act of myself – a white guy – writing praise of Get Out is the kind of phenomenon the film highlights. I watched this movie as a member of one side of the audience, as a person who does not understand this kind of persecution at the molecular level and is probably guilty of trespasses. Get Out is a welcoming journey along a distilled portion of the black experience through the heightened subjective lens of its protagonist; that experience, to wit, is of a black person walking at night through an affluent white suburb, themselves terrified about what white fear of blacks may incite.

poster.jpg

Oedipocalypse Now – Review of ‘Ad Astra’ (dir. James Gray)

In one summer holiday during my early teen years, a few close friends and I would venture into the village woods that formed a perimeter around the local park. Legend told of a vagabond residing somewhere deep in the bracken, so we took it upon ourselves to find and unmask the mysterious drifter. The first couple of times we found little save for remnants of activity; dustbin sacks filled with clothes, a dirty mattress, even a baby’s cot. Evidence compiled, the investigation revealed a firm suspect, all that remained was to attach a face. One evening we journeyed again into the forest – armed with torches, deodorant cans and lighters, typical youth nonsense – and back to the lair. And what we found that night… was a homeless person. A man to whom life had no doubt been testing beyond the scope of my naïve imagination, but I couldn’t yet see that. We shouted abuse and threw a few things, before running away in despicable, derogatory fear. Returning the day after to discover he’d vanished along with his few possessions, we trashed whatever remained.

By all the wondrous, intangible power art can exert over an individual, Ad Astra summoned these memories from the shameful pit in which I’d buried them. Clearly, the event still agitates. In the decade hence I like to think my mind has grown in concert with my heart, and while I’m in no place to judge what made my friends follow suit, I am an authority capable of re-litigating my own stimuli… In those days my father was rarely at home. He worked long hours to maintain his business, and I can probably recall every conversation I had with him, they numbered so few. He would occasionally return with expensive treats or a shiny new gift as reparation for the lack of bond between us, but of course they never worked. Due to his invisible sacrifices I knew a life of comfort for which I had no appreciation. So when I looked at the homeless man’s hovel, all I saw was filth. Having nothing felt to me impossible and inhuman. Then, after the 2008 recession, my father went bankrupt, lost everything he’d worked for, and succumbed to a deep depression. He was now home all the time, but for a new, more insidious reason, it would be another few years until we spoke with any regularity. I slowly began to empathise with a fraction of the suffering visited on that man in the woods.

Today me and my father have a healthy, open, communicative relationship. Still, my memory lingers on that baby’s cot in the hideaway. I don’t think the poor soul had a child to worry about; I think he, like many, saw something aspirational in the idea of dedicating one’s life to the aid of another person. I see that now, and I see that in my dad. Regardless, there is no excuse for my actions. Unconditional love from a parent can help you forget your pains, but it cannot make you forget the pain you caused another.

From what I’ve read, men in particular seem to be especially moved by Ad Astra, given the way it brings traditional expectations of stoic hyper-masculinity into disrepute. Ad Astra – meaning ‘to the stars’ – is on its surface a story about one man’s journey into the Heart of Darkness of deep space. Beyond this, it’s about how a remote patriarch in the father-son dynamic can lead to a boy turning into the kind of man who struggles to emotionally connect with himself and others. I love it. And I wish it could have found me sooner, in those days of gross immaturity.

Screen Shot 2019-09-27 at 14.24.48.png

>>> TRAILER <<<

THE RIGHT STUFF

Ad Astra offers a cynical and frighteningly recognisable view of capitalist society, predominantly through its fictional Space Command, under whose jurisdiction Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) operates. It is an institutional stand-in for a real-world culture that values humans only so far as they think and react like machines. NASA profiles for a very specific psychological skillset in its astronauts. The organisation unearths candidates whose mental fortitude will not degraded by constant hyper-vigilance against the work’s many dangers, the profound sense of isolation from Earth, or existential crises that arise from the ‘overview effect.’ Likewise, for the first manned-missions to Mars private companies are asking for volunteers with no worldly attachments, at peace with a one-way trip. On the one hand, they seemingly want the kind of heroic martyr eager to be part of something bigger than themselves. And on the other, it’s not unreasonable to conclude this will attract people willing to die in order to escape Earth. Ad Astra sides with the latter. It suggests that the ‘selves’ these folk want to transcend were tiny and insufficient to begin with. That there is something missing in their soul, something they are running away from.

Roy McBride is considered the ideal astronaut, primarily because his heart rate has never risen above 80bpm. We see him operate pristinely under pressure, whether compensating for his revolutions while free-falling through the upper atmosphere, realigning a rocket’s landing axis after an electrical shutdown with seconds to spare, or fighting off a crazed Frankenstein’s monster of an experiment that has already ravaged an entire station crew. In the first of many psychological examinations, he insists, “I will only make pragmatic decisions. I am focused on the essential to the exclusion of all else.” He passes the test and is permitted on his mission. Estranged from a wife and any kind of life beyond work, Roy is a vessel whose ‘success’ is defined by his inhumanity. It is only later, when Roy’s answers become more vulnerable and truthful, that his psyche tests are marked as failures.

MV5BMmVkM2MxZDktNzhjNi00ZWNjLTk2NTYtZTkwYTFkMmJlMWFlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc@._V1_

The film begins with a title card. “In the near future./A time of both hope and conflict./Humanity looks to the stars for extraterrestrial life and salvation.” Soon after, we learn Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) ventured to the edge of the heliosphere as Commander of the ‘Lima Project’ to search for alien consciousnesses. As revealed by a Top Secret dossier, Clifford went rogue, co-opted the vessel and tampered with its antimatter core until it began generating apocalyptic bursts of cosmic radiation that threaten all life on Earth. His long-abandoned son, Roy, is sent on a planet-hopping dark night of the soul into the deepest recesses of space, in order to deal with the threat by any means necessary. We’re quickly made to question if, for Roy, this is purely a military operation. It morphs somewhat into a religious quest, or even a Freudian one; if God is the all-father, also absent without leave and radio silent in the ‘out there,’ perhaps it is both.

In the first scene of Ad Astra, Roy is blown from one of the highest platforms of a space elevator, sent tumbling through the stratosphere to oblivion. So begins the film’s epistemological exploration; mankind has been banished from the kingdom of heaven, left to find solace in one another. Could it be, James Gray poses, that’s not such a bad thing. Is the intrinsic human purpose to explore, expand horizons, and cultivate new land, or is this drive simply an exasperation not to be where we’ve been. Because ‘what we know’ are reminders of mundanity and thus, mortality. The remedy: If only we could go further-faster-longer, we might at last find an apotheosis. The irony being, the deeper we peer and the less we find, the more we become the great mystery. Many people take an active disinterest in space, and I’ve often wondered if what fills them with unspeakable Lovecraftian terror is cosmic vastness, or the smallness of man in comparison.

ad-astra-ad_astra_dtlrD_240_t_pitt_mars_still_071719_g_r709.088625%20(1).jpg

In this sense Ad Astra is the thematic sequel to James Gray’s exceptional last movie, The Lost City of Z. That film ended with a father and son venturing deep into the Amazon in search of a mythical ancient city, supposed home to an advanced race. Only, the pair never find it… Or they do, but we’re not permitted to see because some things are beyond comprehension. Z was a story about Man’s search for the sublime, and Ad Astra exudes a similarly mythic aura; like Z it is ruminative on the pre-eminence of human relationships within the confines of an epic unknown. Gray’s latest is unabashedly a melodrama, unavoidably so, for there is nothing in the howling void of space except what we bring with us. When venturing out into that void, it’s impossible but to focus very tightly on human connection, or lack thereof. The more expansive Ad Astra’s cosmic canvas grows, the more it magnifies the impotence of the human spirit dedicated to uncovering its mysteries.

https___cdn.cnn.com_cnnnext_dam_assets_190916102000-james-gray-brad-pitt-ad-astra-set

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY IN THE LITERARY

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn’t feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.

That’s Neil Armstrong, Commander of Apollo 11. Hard not to hear the pain in those lines. Behind a taciturn titan of humanity who – like the gods of old – lived in the sky. Yuri Gagarin, first human in space, crooned of his own experience, “I looked and looked, but I didn’t see God.” It’s a reminder that science, especially when applied to exploration, is inherently intermingled with the emotional drive to understand how we ourselves are at odds with the universe that created us. Which is why I find it particularly aggravating when folk watch a science-fiction film and judge its merits solely by strict adherence to realism; emotional and thematic consistency is of infinitely more importance to a film than practical logic. I’ll give two examples. Firstly, at the film’s conclusion when Roy finally confronts his father at the farthest edge of the solar system, he cries for the first time, shedding a single tear in a zero-g environment. The laws of physics inform us – incontestably – that the tear rolling down his cheek should bubble up and float away from his face. But it doesn’t. Pitt’s acting is so affecting the director astutely corrects for reality, and directs our empathy towards the inward machinations of his protagonist, drawing unnecessary attention away from the external setting. For all its grounded spacefaring spectacle, Ad Astra warns that science dissociated from empathy becomes dispassionate and dangerous. No one should visit the cinema expecting to write a theoretical proof.

This review from New Scientist, although short, goes out of its way in both lede and body to damn the “plot holes” in Ad Astra, despite only providing one tenuous example, and my own second. That as soon as Roy finishes recording a message destined for his father’s last-known location beyond Neptune, both he and the sound technicians wait for an immediate reply. I ask you, reader, what is more important in the moment, to a viewer empathising with a character? That Roy record his message before sequestering to a dormitory for ten days (the approximate amount of time required for a signal transmitted at the speed of light to travel between Mars and Neptune, and back), before returning to learn of his father’s ignorance? What a waste of cinematic real estate, sucking all dramatic tension from the scene more viciously than the vacuum of space itself. Far simpler, and more effective, is what we get: the insulting white noise of radio silence following Roy’s plea, before Station Manager Helen Lantos later relays a the details of a confidential message and institutional conspiracy. It succinctly develops both plot and character, driving Roy down his ruminative death spiral, while affirming Clifford doesn’t want to be found, and/or cannot face talking to his boy.

transmission

OEDIPOCALYPSE NOW

Ted Chiang’s newest collection of science-fiction short stories is breathtakingly wise. The first of nine, ‘The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate,’ contains these words: “like infernal fire, grief burns but does not consume; instead, it makes the heart vulnerable to further suffering.” Deep into his crusade Roy calls attention to an “anger” fuelling his soul, the kind he once recognised in his father, lamenting the pain he inflicts on others because of it. When Roy eventually reunites with his patriarch in orbit around Neptune, he finds no catharsis that might extinguish his internal inferno. Clifford is a husk personifying the solipsism of our rich and powerful; he claims never to have cared for Roy or his mother, or any small-minded terrestrial concerns. All that ever mattered was his work, work with higher purpose. And so, Roy must grapple with the conflicting strands of esteem and skepticism in which we hold society’s leaders. Maybe he had to believe his father was a great man and a good man, with ultimately benevolent if obfuscated intentions. Because if not, he was just an asshole…

Environmental ingenue, Greta Thunberg, recently gave heartfelt testimony to the United Nations demanding action in the struggle against catastrophic climate change. “You say you ‘hear us’,” she begins, “and you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that, I refuse to believe.” Truth is – like Clifford McBride – many of our leaders are assholes, rotten to the very core. Their cancer metastasising to every part of the sociopolitical and economic landscape. A likely endgame of the climate crisis is a cabal of billionaires and elites abandoning the great castles they’ve built on quicksand, leaving us to drown on a dying world they’ve strip-mined of all resources. If that is the case, and nihilism is cowardice, then what recourse is left?

clifford

There’s a famous Arthur C. Clarke quote that always bugged me. “Two possibilities exist. Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” I appreciate what Clarke is reaching for, but it’s hard to imagine a more damning state for humanity than being lone stewards over a universe essentially made for us. This fear supersedes worrying about if we’ll ever make it. The Imposter’s Syndrome; the great weight of expectation not to fuck it all up… In a discovery with bleak implications, Clifford’s efforts have found no signs of life beyond Earth’s humble offing. He calls himself a failure because of this. Perhaps because, like too many, he thinks so little of humanity he lacks faith that we can solve our own problems without external salvation. Roy tenderly insists to the contrary. His father’s anti-discovery is the basis of Ad Astra’s philosophy, our recourse, and an ever-timely reminder:

“We’re all we’ve got.”

Roy reaches out to take his father’s hand and bring him home, to which Clifford recoils. As if not recognising the intent, so bruised by ego is he. Touch is the first method by which infants form an association between ‘self’ and ‘other.’ It’s believed before they even have words for body parts, the recognition another person is ‘like me’ is one of a baby’s first social insights, laying the neurological groundwork for learning from others’ behaviour, and empathising with them. Clifford’s narcissism is scorned as the socially incompatible madness of youth, while Roy’s willingness to help a man he barely knows is a triumph of emotional maturity. Clifford ultimately cannot face the consequences – personal and professional – of returning to Earth, forcing his son to eject him into the tranquil damnation of eternal night. By this point Roy, too, looks beaten. Hung in suspended animation beneath Neptune’s asteroid rings, he chooses to die entombed in spacesuit with his own toxic thoughts. Until, that is, he glimpses the sun, so distant as to be barely distinguishable amongst a backdrop of stars. A reminder of warmth, and of home. There is an undeniable majesty to space, but nothing welcoming; Earth is where all the good stuff happens. He returns to terra firma, buoyed by life-affirming purpose. Unlike his father, he learns that embracing empathy can overpower our tendencies toward self-destruction.

MV5BYTIwYTRiMDUtMDNhZC00MmNiLWI3ODItNGE0N2JkNGM5MWIwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTU3Njk4NTU@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,740_AL_

CONCLUSIONS

‘The Return’ is a core conceit of Campbellian monomythic storytelling. A story feels truest when a hero goes back to whence they came and what they know, albeit changed by the adventure to perceive familiarities for the blessings they are. At University I was always lectured that an essay’s conclusion should follow a similar pattern, linking back to one’s introduction. I never liked the rest of the stringent academic formula, but I liked that. I see essays as storytelling; a journey of discovery for reader and writer both, as opposed to didactic sermon of point and evidence. I came into Ad Astra preaching the gospel of space exploration and colonisation as a utilitarian end to justify any means. The film, and this review, has changed my mind. Forsaking a planet and people yet to be fully affected even by the misdeeds of living memory – for the cold denialist refuge of other worlds – is a shameful short-term aspiration. As with the cyclical nature of history’s oft-repeated mistakes, we find ourselves right back where we started, with no alternative but to hope we got a little wiser along the path.

Do you recall the meaning of ‘ad astra?’

Consider then the fact that our universe has no centre, expanding outwards from all conceivable directions; every space our molecules ever occupy is a ‘Brouwer’s Fixed Point,’ once the site of the Big Bang. Billions of years later Earth became the oldest house, erected by chance over that epicentre to provide life a sanctuary. We are of the stars; sculpted from their sacrificial material, they are with us always. So what are we running away from? In a moment when humanity can access a skillset capable of destroying our lodging, those same tools could bring people together to build a better world. It’s time to get to work making a house, a home.

To the stars

poster

The Last Night of the World – Review of ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (dir. Quentin Tarantino)

In recent weeks I went on holiday with a group of friends to the Portuguese town of Sagres. Chasing sun, surf, and an all manner of other splendours. Amidst quaint seafood restaurants and beach stalls lined with tchotchkes in this sleepy nook of Europe, you’d never consider its history as a place of pilgrimage. At the height of Roman civilisation Sagres was the most westerly point of the known world; folk would travel from all over Eurasia to stand at the edge of existence and listen for a hiss of water as the sea consumed the sun each night, letting her colours bleed across the water’s surface in kaleidoscopic emulsion. The Tinseltown of 1969 we find in Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood (hereafter, Hollywood) is a rose-tinted Mecca, stained by the dying hues of a sun setting on the Pacific and a more innocent age of stardom. It’s a pristine vision of the erstwhile tainted by knowledge of a sullied future; every second is a bittersweet morsel, like staring at the smiling faces in a photo of a once-happy family now torn apart by divorce.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt play fading TV star Rick Dalton and stuntman Cliff Booth, respectively. Old chums who, by hook or by crook and without really trying, always seem to wind up back in one another’s company and are happy to be there. Reuniting with old companions in Sagres primed me to observe another quality of Hollywood too many movies misrepresent through jokes and forced chemistry. That the purity of male friendships is rooted in the fact they either fall apart, or will always stay exactly the same. Rick is the archetypal 50s/60s leading man: spots on television, supporting roles in larger ensemble pieces, handsome, rugged, salt of the earth. Although he never made the full jump to features and by ’69 the culture, and his shot, has passed him by. We watch as the forgotten cowboy – Hollywood’s oldest icons of righteous rebellion – wanders through a poisoned oasis. The world can get darker under all that California sunshine, but Cliff stays through it all. One producer wants Rick to change his haircut to something more ‘hip,’ ringing a death knell on the times when he mattered. Dalton strikes as undiagnosed bipolar and self-medicating through drink, learning only after the party’s over that you can’t possibly live up to the Los Angeles dream, because it is a dream. And like most dreams, monsters lurk around every corner.

Screen Shot 2019-09-02 at 16.13.17.png

>>> TRAILER <<<

CHARLES MANSON’S HOLLYWOOD

I don’t know much about the wider ephemera of the era, but I’ve read my fair share on the Manson murders, Charlie’s aspirations in Hollywood, and the profound reverberations of that fateful night on Cielo Drive, August 8th, 1969. The Manson murders and – in hindsight – the election of Richard Nixon were the loss of innocence in America that led to the detachment and paranoia of the 70s, resulting in the definitive cinematic decade of antiheroes. Hollywood previously thought of itself as anti-establishment, but these two seminal events helped show that La La Land was in fact run by a clique of Dorian Grays, and this new hippie class were their disfigured portrait seeking recompense. Before Manson there was an openness to new experiences, but despite not killing a soul himself he became a faceless Grim Reaper wandering the streets, and from then on people kept their doors locked. Charlie’s family entered properties and visited unspeakable violence on anyone they found there; before Cielo Drive, he told the Family to leave behind a murder scene ‘as gruesome as any you’ve ever seen.’ These people had never been involved in homicide, there was no internet or public directory of forensic photography. The only place from which they might draw inspiration for savagery like that was the movies.

Manson-Family-Hollywood.png

The weekend Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood opened in the UK coincided with the release of Mindhunter Season Two, episode five of which features Manson. Again, the ratty-haired freak is on our screens, permitted to be the raconteur showman, if only for a scene. Invading homes through television as his acolytes once invaded Tate’s, and the show wants us to be enchanted by his legend. In Hollywood, by proxy and in barely a minute of screen time, Tarantino humanises Manson for what he was: a dirty, cowardly two-bit demagogue who coerced the weak-minded into inciting a race war while he kept his hands clean. It’s the same warts-and-all approach the director takes with Bruce Lee in a scene many have called racist and insulting; for the extreme accent Mike Moh portrays the martial artist with, for his ego and quick temper, and the fact Cliff Booth beats him in a fight. Amidst the fantasia, Tarantino knows the dignity of the human spirit in its rawest form is worth immortalising more than skewed memories of extraordinary feats. He remembers Lee not as an impregnable golem of Eastern mysticism, but a person. Independent and powerful, flawed and brittle, and loves him for what he offers, not what holds him back. There is no greater gift.

MV5BMjI0OWE4NTQtMzUwOS00Y2UzLWE5NTItMWE4MzJhNmJmMjQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjMxMTY4NDQ@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1480,1000_AL_.jpg

ALONE IN THE DARK

It’s an era sans Netflix, when only a handful of movies come out each month and stay on screens for weeks, showing at the same times day after day. An era of cultural community, of audiences bonding in the dark. Today endless choice – a boon for diversity – is leaving an experiential vacuum. There’s an endlessly expanding catalogue of new ‘content’ launched for streaming on a daily basis, not even accounting for the massive catalogue from a century’s worth of filmic backlog. ‘Let’s talk about [X]’ has been usurped by, ‘have you seen [X]?’ To which the answer is more than often, ‘no.’ Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood is a breather. A meditation, a yoga. Tarantino makes sure to insert a sequence of Marvin Schwarz threading the reels of two Rick Dalton pictures through the projector before sitting down to watch with his spouse. It takes effort to watch a movie, and when a thing takes effort it doesn’t seem right to reduce it to background noise while moseying at other tasks. Effort engages attention more fully, and the spiritual rewards are more potent by an order of magnitude. The gurus were correct when they told us the confluence of space and time that is most meaningful to the human mind is attention.

MV5BMGVmZWE5MzEtYjMxNS00NWY4LTkzYmMtYjM2MzE2NWZmMTI1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjMxMTY4NDQ@._V1_SY1000_SX1500_AL_.jpg

And diligent attention is very much necessitated at a runtime exceeding two-and-a-half hours where nary a second feels wasted. Not so much because all of it is essential, but everything adds while nothing takes away. The personalities, milieu, environment and minutiae are so strong they hold a plotless film together. I’ve had this pervasive cloud of anhedonia weighing on my soul while watching new films lately; it’s been far too long since I last got to gorge on a real five-course meal of a movie that no words can fittingly honour. Long stretches of Hollywood are dedicated to lackadaisically driving from one place to another and taking in the scenery, honouring the intentions of A.W. Ross that LA’s Miracle Mile be seen through a car window. These extended sequences bestow an otherworldly sense of sonder to a gallery of faces outside the principle cast. Across two days and a night over a six-month timeframe, Tarantino excavates an unprecedented hiraeth for time and place, even to those with few reference points outside of the movie’s universe.

MV5BY2U4ZjViODItOGJmNS00NDRhLWI0YTEtNjFjMjYzM2IxNzA0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_SY1000_SX1500_AL_.jpg

RESTORATIVE HISTORY

In her 1968-78 essay, ‘The White Album,’ Joan Didion writes in mourning of the epoch Tarantino reanimates for Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood:

“We tell ourselves stories in order to live… We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five… We live entirely… by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the ‘ideas’ with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.”

I suppose it is in this sense that Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood is synonymous with the hyperreality of Tarantino’s oeuvre. In the past, Tarantino has expressed historical rage through fantasy; for Hollywood his motivations are more muted, focused, and repentant. Sharon Tate’s enduring legacy has been one reduced to victimhood, the American martyr and sacrificial lamb who had to be killed for our world to be born. Imagine dying frightened and in pain, and that memory being the only part of you which survives. Tarantino’s film rightly demands we remember her as more than that, and knows one of art’s greatest gifts is it allows us to exist in its fabrications. Lies that tell the truth, about what is or could have been. Rather than faithfully depict the murders of Tate and her friends with the inevitable horror of their savagery – as many audience members would expect – when Rick and Cliff viciously give the Mansons their just desserts it is pure wish-fulfilment. An ending that promises a world where good things happen, worthy of tales that begin, “Once upon a time…”

once_upon_a_time_in_hollywood_references_and_easter_eggs_sharon_tate_margot_robbie

Tarantino’s four most recent movies have all dealt with the American past, and they’ve come to the same conclusion: his is a country steeped in bloodshed and resentment, two things movies have sometimes worked to sharpen the appetite for, as one of his Manson girls attests. The director’s interest in revising awful events of yore in his recent work really fascinates me; be it the Cielo Drive murders here, Nazi atrocities in Inglorious Basterds, slavery in Django Unchained, or the timely dissection of white supremacy in The Hateful Eight. His cultists, Nazis, slave owners and yokels are not deserving of outreach from an impartial public forum, they are a bloody stain on our history, roaches worthy only of extermination. He wields his filmmaking currency to allow victims of real-life atrocities to get their revenge and have their catharsis, if only up on the screen. This trait is quintessential Tarantino, a disciple of the art and life principle. He, perhaps more than any other working writer/director, understands and appreciates the primacy of moving pictures to shape society in their image. Hell, in Inglorious Basterds the massacre of Nazi High Command occurs, pointedly, during a movie premiere; his narratives reconstruct history because movies can change the goddamn world. I never really got it until now, until he made a film with a gentle heart and bursting with kindness, but Tarantino is not making pastiche art for art’s sake and because he is a cinephile nonpareil. He is making art for our sake.

MV5BNGY2Njg0YTctYzhiNS00Mzk5LTk3NjEtNTg5NzJhNjIzYzIxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1739,1000_AL_.jpg

THE LAST NIGHT OF THE WORLD

I have a favourite scene. Rick meets a talented eight-year-old actor (she hates the term, “actress”) on set of his first respectable job in years, as a diabolical heavy for the TV show, Lancer. Between note-swapping on actorly process – the young girl sharing wisdom beyond her years, Rick both narrowly strung together through his drink and somehow galvanised by it – she asks what he is reading. Rick gets choked up recalling the plot of his dime-store novel about Easy Breezy; the tale of an over-the-hill cowboy who could break any horse he liked without so much as looking its way, until one day his hip gave out and Ol’ Easy’s mojo was gone for good. Tears swim in Dalton’s eyes as if only just realising how the character’s decline mirrors his own. Rick is halfway through the book, we’re about halfway through the film. His longing – for something lost or more likely never there to begin with – the desperation not to feel “useless,” is life itself. We’re all in the halfway house between this world and the next, waiting to be moved on. Where to, we cannot know, and even for all the pain there’s no certainty it’s a better place than where we came from. This tender scene – as with the restorative history of Sharon Tate’s salvation, and as with this entire preconscious vision of a movie – invites us to ponder what we could achieve in the present if the past we measure ourselves against had even one less persistently aching wound. When this pint-sized oracle, Trudi, first asks after the story of Easy Breezy, Rick declines, saying he hasn’t gotten to the end yet. “I didn’t ask for the whole story,” she scolds. “What’s the idea of the story?” Put a pin in that one…

once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-leonardo-dicaprio-1108x0-c-default.jpg

‘The Last Night of the World’ is one of eighteen stories from Ray Bradbury’s The Illustrated Man, an advertisement for the feature film adaptation of which is given generous airplay in Hollywood, and the accompanying soundtrackIn it, every adult on earth shares an identical vision of the planet’s destruction, causing the global government to rule that all children be given poison capsules before bed to spare them apocalyptic suffering. The choice backfires atrociously when the prophecy proves false, ending the tale on the devastating image of traumatised parents weeping over children they’ve sacrificed for no reason at all. Rick sardonically warns Trudi the existential angst gnawing at his emotions is waiting to claim her too, some ways down the road. In a manner equal-but-opposite to the parents in Bradbury’s yarn, conceivably Rick thinks by sharing that prescience he shelters her from it, but potentially commits more harm than good. I think a part of Tarantino believes by rendering Sharon Tate on screen as vibrant, pregnant, and full of life, that he reclaims a piece of her soul from eternity to bless us. Remind us the joy of all we have in spite of everything taken away. More so, I think he’s right.

I’ve filled this review with anecdotes, historical recounts, and references to the works of others because Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood is a treatise on the purpose and value of storytelling. Here’s one more story: Earlier this week I was sunbathing in my garden, and under the rim of the table beside me I caught sight of a scuffle between a spider and a ladybird freshly caught in its web. I watched for twenty minutes or more as the insect carefully manoeuvred its way down the web, staving off the spider that set upon its prey five times to no avail. The ladybird heaved and hustled to the final strand, and in riposte to one last futile effort from the arachnid untangled itself to fall unscathed, triumphant, alive, to the freedom of my patio floor.

And then I stamped on it.

once_upon_a_time_in_hollywood_still_julia_butters

I don’t even know why, which does little to lessen the guilt. Perhaps some baser cavity in my marrow felt cheated out of cathartic violence and demanded another outlet. Perhaps the rot is endemic in us, a rabble of sado-masochists whose failures always outweigh achievement. But what’s the idea of the story? What on earth do I tell Trudi?

If Joan Didion is right about us telling stories in order to live, then surely it is of paramount importance what stories we rely on, and how we live because of them. Maybe I haven’t taken to heart the unspoken force driving Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’s philosophy of human absolution, that history need not be written by its villains.

Or maybe I did. And still struggle to make peace with the fact that one thing beyond the capacity of storytelling is answers. All I know for sure is I wish I hadn’t killed that ladybird, I wish the Manson murders weren’t real, I wish Sharon Tate had lived. There’s an inexhaustible list of things we all yearn to have never happened, and we’re stuck in a world where they did. We have a duty to make the best of it.

MV5BOTg4ZTNkZmUtMzNlZi00YmFjLTk1MmUtNWQwNTM0YjcyNTNkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

Speaking Truth to Atomic Power – Review of ‘Chernobyl’ (created by Craig Mazin)

During the early days of 1986, catastrophic engineering failure in a state-of-the-art machine resulted in a devastating explosion, claiming the lives of all present. In the aftermath, a special commission appointed by heads of state began investigating the tragedy, and found that the organisational structure and poor decision-making of the body in charge were primary factors leading to gross oversight. The critical design flaw in question could not have been anticipated by the operational crew. That was in January; then, almost three months to the day after the disaster aboard Space Shuttle Challenger, reactor number four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded in Soviet Ukraine. As America still grieved, Russia had to deal with the fallout – literal and political – of a radioactive dirty bomb. Similar to Challenger, it was a catastrophe of their own making, the outcome of a series of lies and concealments issued by self-serving bureaucrats to aid a corrupt administration more obsessed with public image than the wellbeing of its own citizenry.

Screen Shot 2019-06-10 at 16.54.10.png

>>>TRAILER<<<

Chernobyl is essential, paradigm-shifting television. It forces you to look at the hard edges of the world differently, confront the solid barriers of groupthink and superstition, to instead see them as shadow puppets dancing on the wall of Plato’s cave, distractions the powers at be want us to see. From the monologue it begins with Chernobyl intends, explicitly, to draw direct links with current politics. It is impossible to watch without thinking of world leaders like Trump. People of mediocre intelligence charged with great power, economic and global, that they misuse because they do not understand, or worse, respect it. This is five hours of riveting, superlatively well-made television with a deep respect for history and moral responsibility. Not for a second does Chernobyl become a polemic on the risks attached to nuclear power, but it is about respecting that power and its savage potential. Although thoughtfully dramatised with regards to specifics of the disaster, it is not insistent to a fault on depicting events precisely as they happened; dramatisation is employed voraciously here to illuminate wider systemic truths. Namely, to quote series creator, Craig Mazin, that “lying, arrogance, and suppression of criticism are dangerous.” Chernobyl wields a remarkable awareness that merely being about an important subject does not automatically make it important art.

FOREVER CRISIS

Emily Watson’s character, Ulana Khomyuk – a composite of the dozens of scientists who aided Valery Legasov in his investigation – interviews patients to find out what happened the night of the accident. “We have to pursue every possibility,” Legasov tells her. “No matter how unlikely, no matter what or who is to blame.” The beautiful, indispensable naivety of science is that it is a relentless pursuit of truth, where none can ever be found. We have theories that are repeatedly tested under varying conditions and if they hold up to decades of scrutiny they are considered fact. Even those facts are always subject to change if a newly tested hypothesis works better. It’s a modus operandi built from never resting on one’s laurels, never taking anything as absolute. The scientific method stands in stark opposition to the demagoguery of politicians and priests who offer all the answers. Ultimate wisdom is knowing you know nothing.

MV5BM2VjNDFjOWItYmUyZC00Y2UwLWJhMjMtYWQyM2FhYWE4ZTc1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDg4MjkzNDk@._V1_SX1776_CR0,0,1776,998_AL_.jpg

The Chernobyl incident is an arresting scientific beast, falling into a unique subset of catastrophe. The kind of disaster we mark with anniversaries and try to move on from, even though it is still in motion and seemingly without end (the exclusion zone around the site will be uninhabitable for 22,000 years). The struggle with getting people to care about translucent existential threats, such as radioactive contamination or climate change, is they exist on multiple time scales at once, impacting human lives at varying speeds. They are what we might call, forever crises. The calamities they threaten to unleash can and will unfold both on the present, and on the scale of epochs. Jared Harris’ protagonist, Valery Legasov, informs Scherbina upon first landing at ground zero, “you are dealing with something that has not occurred on this planet before.” He integrates a mortal timeline with planetary aeons, potently emphasising how the decisions we make at this very moment have the potential to impact untold generations. So, what did we learn from Chernobyl? Judging from the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, not a lot. No long-term epidemiological study on the effects of low-dose exposures to radiation ever came together, and the Japanese in 2011 asked their citizens to wait a decade or two while they studied this new nuclear disaster as if it were the first. Because society plodded along after Chernobyl much the same as it did before. Svetlana Alexievich puts it best in a book I devoured after watching episode one, saying Chernobyl “is above all a catastrophe of time.”

MV5BYzQ3NjY4MDAtY2Q3Ny00Mjk0LWIwNmYtYThmMGZmZWZjNzc5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDg4MjkzNDk@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,999_AL_.jpg

EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

That collection of first-hand accounts, Voices From Chernobyl, like the show captures a side of history we rarely see. The side told from the point of view of people we otherwise would never know existed. As I write this, D-Day anniversary celebrations are taking place, replete with stories of valorous soldiers who ventured across the channel in defence of freedom. We’re in awe of these men who laid down their lives for us, just as we marvel as three individuals dive into irradiated water beneath Chernobyl reactor four to empty the water tanks and prevent an explosion that will reign terror on millions. However, our preponderance for hero/saviour narratives cuts off avenues of appreciation for the predictive decision-making. The people averting disasters before they even occur, the work that really matters. The sky is ready to fall at any moment; heroes aren’t only those who leap to shield us from falling debris, but also the ones keeping it propped up. Alexievich and Chernobyl argue we see history best through the eyes of people who lived it and did their best to be proactive, not the official debrief and macro-analysis.

For this reason the series chooses to authentically portray Soviet life of the era to a degree that most viewers will never even know to notice. The show has an unmatched, fetish-like obsession with avoiding errata. I’ve seen people who lived in Pripyat at the time comment on Twitter about accurate contemporary details; the buckets citizens used to take out rubbish, kitchen utensils, provincial babushkas chatting on the stoop. All the way to blink-and-you-miss-it minutiae like children attending school on a Saturday (they didn’t switch to a five-day week until 1989). It is the highest testament to the creative collaboration that Chernobyl, despite being a western-produced product, carries such a distinct and assured aura of time and place. Amidst this overwhelming verisimilitude, it should feel anachronistic that we hear no critical dialogue in Russian, always accent-less British English. Again, this is dramatic license used well. We hear them as they would hear themselves.

image.jpg

On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the need to belong is the most important psychological requirement, the psycho-social carrot communism relies on its subjects chasing. The words ‘community’ and ‘communism’ have collective etymological roots. Chernobyl shows us the people viscerally felt this while the apparatchik did not. Leadership wants citizens to focus on their work and allow the State to worry about matters of the State. Cold War politics prevented the free exchange of scientific knowledge, making bad situations infinitely worse. As such, Chernobyl is a case study in the sour fruits of these labours; as three liquidators take a break from killing irradiated animals in an abandoned town, they see a May Day celebration banner ironically recontextualised reading, ‘Our goal is the happiness of all mankind.’ Be it damage control in the wake of nuclear disaster, the Soviet myth itself, or climate change denial, some lies need to be shouted.

MV5BNmFjMGI0OGMtZmU5NC00YTEwLWFlMjMtNTQ2NTk2OGZkYjJmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyOTY0NjY0NTM@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,883_AL_

TOWING THE PARTY LINE

When I look at the state of our world today I think, in all walks of life, people no longer trust the referees; be they police, politicians, journalists, judges, whoever. Those charged with impartially enforcing the rules are deemed to be failing, and trusting expertise has fallen out of fashion. I think it’s because we focus on mistakes to generate outrage. For these referees the many correct calls are forgotten, and any errors are unforgivable. When we lose this trust the world no longer feels unfair, it feels rigged, and incapable of becoming fair because those who benefit from the tipped scales hold the power to preserve that status quo. Cynicism is bound to arise, but a truth I cling to is that while individual humans are capable of worse than we ever think possible, others have the capacity to be so much better than we could ever rightly expect. The greed of the evil will always be countered by the bravery of the good, often from people who do not know how good they are until their moment arises and they seize on an impulse. Truth awaits in the presence of humans seeking to save and safeguard those around them, and is long banished from the presence of those protecting only themselves. Apt, then, that Chernobyl should conclude with a trial. Our legal system is one of the last bastions of real truth. Yes there are still failures, twisted facts, wrong verdicts, but here more so than anywhere else lies are the anomalies. And it makes the injustices reek.

Power doesn’t corrupt so much as it reveals what was there all along, lurking just beneath the surface. Behind the parts we play, the friendly face. All Anatoly Dyatlov ever contemplated in his pursuit of career advancement – the night he orchestrated disaster – was a serious industrial accident, not nuclear holocaust. He is a resentful defendant prone to disapproving outbursts in a sham trial that has already passed sentence on his guilt. Yet even he is stunned into silence when Legasov does something neither he, nor anyone in the court, may have heard from an official in their lifetime. A thing so simple as the truth. Those under totalitarian rule live with their eyes shut, believing the black eyelids of statecraft are objective fact. I recently heard the story of a charitable Indian woman who took in girls from the lowest class of ‘Untouchable’ dalit. Children whose birthright decreed they should eat from, and live in, the mountains of rubbish discarded by the rest of their nation. Who were forced to scurry through the streets in order to avoid slurs and lobbed projectiles. The lady gave them shelter and clothes, provided food and education, and before too long the changes in self-esteem manifested. Now when the girls crossed the street they held their heads high, meeting the gazes from those of higher caste, where before it had been locked to their feet. Give a person knowledge and they inherit the world. Less uplifting is Legasov’s honourable attempt to open the eyes of his people to a full spectrum of colour, a decision that makes him a blood traitor to the communist ideal.

MV5BYTk4MGU2Y2UtMWFlYS00OTg4LWE2NTYtMjNjZWFiZDI3YWI1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQ0NjQzNTE@._V1_.jpg

Chernobyl has many writerly lines, but the best comes in the finale. “Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth.I think what Legasov is suggesting with his correct counter-intuition is that truth becomes less valuable as its rarity scales. When honesty is the outlier, an anomalous result, a blip in the agenda until lies inevitably return to rule the roost, it ceases to be a saving grace. The inverse of this phenomenon is alluded to through the west’s reaction to Legasov’s testimony in Vienna, where pundits applaud his candour in ‘revealing’ that operator error alone cause the explosion. “At last a Soviet scientist who tells the truth.” Yet this narrative he forged was but a half-truth, and half-truths corrupt subsequent whole truths with an air of doubt. Once in the open we’ve no alternative but to wait for the contamination to decay away like the half-life of nuclear material. For his “statecraft” and reaffirmation of this concessive lie, the Central Committee were to award him the title ‘Hero of the Soviet Union.’ In reality this was essentially the end of Legasov’s story.

TRUTH TO POWER

The show’s Legasov, embodying his creator’s chosen theme, asks at the start of episode one, “what is the cost of lies?” The finale then brilliantly wrestles with this question by throwing it into a crucible against its dark twin, considering also the cost of truth. In Legasov’s world, truth is so poisonous and irradiated that the best course of action, adopted long ago, is to stay well clear. Even decades and many miles removed from Soviet Russia the truth can still mean scorn from one’s colleagues, or worse a complete loss of livelihood. For some, to this day, on the other side of the truth waits bullets or bars. When Legasov, at Khomyuk’s request, finally does tell the truth no rewards await. The system does not reform, no statues are erected, no schools built in his name. What happens to him is more than the sentence of a protracted death, it is the promise of erasure. To be cast into shadow until no one can any longer put a face to the name. Until his memory is words on paper, inside a red file tucked away in the offices of a career partyman, waiting to be struck through with ink and censored from history. KGB chief Charkov’s words to him are haunting as simultaneous echo of the societal amnesia we see regarding the threat of climate change. Out of sight, out of mind; “why worry about something that doesn’t exist?”

1557325253544-0505-bh-f-chernobyl.jpeg

Dyatlov believed that no matter how far he pushed an RBMK reactor to its extremes, he could press ‘AZ-5’ and crisis would be averted. Deep down, don’t we all need to believe there is an AZ-5? That there exists a button – perhaps in the Oval Office, the United Nations, or aboard the International Space Station – that will make everything okay. That can rectify past mistakes and forgive us our trespasses. That there is a fail safe, some contingency plan for all this madness… Beyond the slow-burning dread of invisible radiation and putrefying bodies, the real horror of Chernobyl is how it plugs into the daily, autocratic terror of lacking control, of trying to get by under the thumb of vast bureaucracies and world-threatening technology. The final episode where this trial takes place is called ‘Vichnaya Pamyat,’ or ‘memory eternal.’ It alludes to a hymn sung by the Eastern Orthodox Church at the end of funerals, but it may as well be the voice of our planet calling out to us. Mother Earth’s memory is long, and she will bear the scars of history humans care to forget. It is not enough for time alone to tell, action must write the future. The series is littered with shots of smokers, and episode four in particular drew my attention with many scenes bookended by characters indulging the habit. Normally the act of smoking is mere window dressing, but in Chernobyl it again means more. The most radioactive places on earth are a smoker’s lungs… Chernobyl is both a warning and a call-to-arms, that the eternal memory of humanity need not be a lament. Like a smoker, blindly yet willing inducing a malignant cancer, it is not too late for us to to quit. We are, just about, still in the sweet spot: we’re not dead, and there is still hope.

MV5BNTEyYmIzMDUtNWMwNC00Y2Q1LWIyZTgtMGY1YzUxOTAwYTAwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjIyMTc0ODQ@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

End of Watch – ‘Game of Thrones’ Season 8 Debrief

The inevitable demise of our small blue planet could come in forms as numerous and inventive as those dreamt up by the cruellest Westerosi lords and ladies to punish their citizens, be it anything ranging from the expansion of our sun, all the way to an ultimate heat death of the universe. Which is a long-winded way of saying – to echo the words of Robert Frost – we know the world will one day end. What we don’t know is whether that end will be one of fire, or one of ice. In the final season of Game of Thrones these polar concepts came to a destructive head as the raging desire of Daenerys Targaryen met the biting hatred of the Night King.

The following is a positive look at Game of Thrones’ final season, all couched in the caveat that execution-wise, five of these six episodes exhibited major shortcomings preventing many character and plot beats from landing as the creators would have hoped. It’s impossible to separate my disappointment with these last two seasons from the knowledge that HBO offered showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss as generous a budget of time and money as they wanted, and they made the executive decision to prematurely draw proceedings to a close with two truncated seasons. Whether by boredom or burnout they made a choice fans must live with. As an audience we are certainly not owed their undying commitment, no matter our investment of emotional and intellectual real estate.

The duty of an audience is two-fold: constructively critique genuine failings (beyond screaming ‘BAD WRITING’ into the Twitter void), and celebrate the accomplishments. In the case of this piece, to put the raw emotions born from the fires of a finale to one side, take a step back from the elephant, and look at the entirety of the now-completed thing to engage in the teachings it offers. With all said and done, what, if anything, was the point of Game of Thrones?

Game-of-Thrones-Season-8.jpg

FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

All fear is fear of loss. Game of Thrones is a story constructed of grief, guilt, loyalty, and vengeance, feelings rooted in memories of love and loss. For this reason the show has always implicitly been about memory. The book series ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ draws its name from the stories passed down by generations of warriors and wise men, noble or no. A history written according to its survivors. Many will have noticed the astrolabe etchings during the title sequence changed this season, now depicting events from the very show we’ve watched together as opposed to tales of yore. We have watched a new chapter in the long history of Westeros, albeit a single tattered rag somewhere in the margins of a grand tapestry.

Memory is a major preoccupation, particularly for the central Stark family who – steeped in a regional motto ‘the North remembers’ – are infamous for holding onto trans-generational grudges. Even their House words, ‘Winter is coming,’ exist as long-buried, marrow-deep memory disguised as premonition, urging vigilance against the inevitable fall of a second Long Night.

https___blogs-images.forbes.com_danidiplacido_files_2019_05_10__Helen_Sloan___HBO.0-1200x800

The season premiere was intentionally structured around repetition, especially to the show’s very first episode, as if longing for simpler times. A royal procession arrives at Winterfell, a child climbs a vantage point to take a look. And who could forget an artistic array of body parts, courtesy of the White Walkers. Episode two deepened that motif, with most scenes featuring characters recounting a memory. Daenerys recalls stories from childhood told by her brother about Jaime Lannister murdering their father. Jaime and Tyrion reminisce about their first trip to Winterfell and forgotten monikers of ‘golden lion’ and ‘whoremonger’. Gendry fails at properly chronicling his time fighting the dead. And, most subtly and touchingly, Davos and Gilly see a small girl who looks like the princess Shireen Baratheon, who taught both to read at different points. This is the show brushing on the concept of shared memory, of the bonds forged between those who bear witness. How we are gifted a second life, for a while at least, in the hearts of those who knew us. Sadly, that also requires two deaths. Once when the body wilts, and again when someone utters our name or glimpses our face in their mind’s eye for the very last time.

Game-Of-Thrones-Arya-Jon.w700.h467.2x.jpg

It is the eve of battle. Those sheltered within the walls of Winterfell clinging to a final morsel of human connection. Dancing with the ghosts of people they’ve lost, the ghost of the person they used to be. Podrick Payne sings ‘Jenny of Oldstones,’ a song about a widow named Jenny losing her memories and sense of self after the death of a husband drove her insane. In these moments, for Jenny and our beloved characters, nostalgia is a coping mechanism in the face of a future too bleak to contemplate. It’s an infinitely beautiful intake of breath, and easily one of the best episodes this long series has managed to conjure up.

George R.R. Martin, like Tolkien, has written a myth that can always apply to the human condition. The Night King’s army of the dead – an enemy that ‘doesn’t tire, doesn’t stop, doesn’t feel’ – as with Saruman’s Uruk Hai ‘bred for a single purpose, to destroy the world of men,’ unsubtly represent existential threat. For Game of Thrones, the end of memory is a figurative fate that has far-reaching impact in the real world. Just as the White Walkers, originally created to destroy mankind, were long forgotten by previous generations, our civilisation exhibits striking amnesic gaps in awareness of history and its tendency to repeat. The Walkers stand in as humanity’s inevitable reckoning for havoc sown long ago and swept under the rug.

night-king-and-bran.jpg

THE LONG NIGHT

Thrones has seldom dabbled in the prophetic intricacies of Martin’s novels, even their crux, Azor Ahai. I think this is because we live in the age of spin and fake news; rightly, the show cautions of the potential for narrative to be misunderstood, twisted, or entirely fabricated. Jaime is not the honourless enactor of regicide people believe him to be, Rhaegar did not kidnap and rape Lyanna Stark, dragons are not forever gone from the world. As Littlefinger once intoned to Varys, the realm is the thousand blades of Aegon Targaryen’s enemies forged into the Iron Throne, that more realistically number one hundred. ‘A story we agree to tell each other over and over until we forget that it’s a lie.’ Fittingly symmetrical, then, that the throne made with the fires of Balerion the Dread during Aegon’s conquest is unsmelted by Drogon during Daenerys’ conquest. The Iron Throne is corruptive like the ring of power, and Drogon was intelligent enough to see it must be destroyed so the cycle of lies might end and men’s hearts might feel less incentive to blacken. This act from Drogon is so poignant and transcendent of base humanity; he exercises judgement at a moment of blinding anger and grief, destroying the symbolic source of evil, then chooses to mourn in solitude now brotherless and motherless. Drogon destroyed what killed Daenerys. Jon may have stabbed her, but the dragon saw it was his mother’s hunger for power that drove the blade there. Across eight seasons the fight for power proved more destructive than the fight against death. Dany’s reign would no doubt have been a Long Night all of its own.

Game-of-Thrones-finale-.jpg

Manipulated as the shadow-puppet of Illyrio Mopatis and sold into subservience by her brother Viserys, it’s no surprise Dany’s motivation from the off has been to ‘break the wheel’ of lords squabbling over control, rule as a benevolent queen, and turn Westeros into a kind of utopia. A worthy cause, indeed. However, the Greeks had two meanings for that word, utopia: ‘eu-topos’ meaning ‘the good place,’ and ‘ou-topos’ meaning ‘the place that cannot be.’

Endings force audiences to recontextualise and better understand the journey. Upon rewatch, we see Robb Stark’s battle-hardy zeal less as heroism, and more the naivety that will get him killed along with those he loves. Likewise, Dany’s path also bears new meaning. Suddenly, crucifying the masters of Yunkai, burning the temple at Vaes Dothrak and laying siege to Mereen stand not as justice, they read like the first draft of a manifesto. A history of ancestral decisions, made for her – whether by magical dragon blood or centuries of incest – before she was even born.

This is the tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen: she finished her fight, she broke the wheel, she achieved peace. Then, at the last, she decided war felt better.

This recontextualisation, this real-time historiography, is embodied in Tyrion’s conversation with Jon while imprisoned in the finale. The dwarf rewrites Daenerys’ travails in Essos as a tale of fire and blood, as opposed to liberation. Without a shade of doubt, the bait and switch of Dany choosing genocide lacked a lot of emotional rooting. Foreshadowing is not character motivation, so I can see why so many reacted in uproar to being blindsided by a plot hit-and-run. If you’re out for a dinner of two perfect courses, followed by a third where you discover a cockroach in the dessert, it paints the entire experience in a wholly unsavoury light. Emilia Clarke is forced to sell the moment without a line of dialogue, but it’s essential to bear in mind she is looking at the Red Keep, built by Targaryens and symbolic of a birthright stripped away.

Daenerys wasn’t winning the way she wanted to win. She inspired no love in the people of Westeros. When real life didn’t follow the script she’d rehearsed a thousand times in her head, when she wasn’t welcomed back with open arms and devoted followers, she couldn’t handle the rejection. It feels like a contrivance that she sees inspiring fear as her only alternative, but the sins of the father is a well-trodden trope, and Dany’s arc has always represented the self-fulfilling prophecy bred by bloodlines. The character has been built up for eight seasons as hero and saviour of the world only to become yet another tyrant. Charismatic, affection-vacuum narcissist leaders generally turn out to be crazy assholes, even if they didn’t start that way. It’s heartbreakingly honest. It is the right ending for a medieval dark fantasy show.

4-helen-sloan---hbo-1558332698876_1280w

A DREAM OF SPRING

There were few heroes left on Game of Thrones. All who remained were a few morally reprehensible souls whose acts we sought to justify due to emotional attachment. The same blind, toxic devotion that drives Jaime back into Cersei’s arms when we know just as well as him it’s not the best choice he can make. Again, here’s the human heart in conflict with itself, the same tumultuous beast threatening to stir in every man when you put a sword in their hand. On the personal scale we’re a people replete with stories of kindness and warmth, although when you zoom out to look at the macro it’s almost impossible to see all the good through blotches of misery and madness. Game of Thrones isn’t so much an inspiring yarn as cautionary tale. The whole show is cinematic moral instruction via the negative.

That Jon is still forced to go North despite Grey Worm taking the Unsullied to Naath suggests this new, infant feudal democracy honours its word better than the monarchies preceding it. Jon gets a Frodo ending. He says goodbye to family, and leaves for the ‘Grey Havens’ beyond the Wall, burdened by knife wounds that took his life and can never truly heal. As last of the Targaryens, he has no place in the better world he was instrumental in building. Aegon’s conquest began a Targaryen dynasty that lasted a thousand years. Daenerys sitting on the throne her ancestor forged with the blades of his enemies doesn’t break that wheel, it builds new track. Bran is the first elected leader in the history of Westeros. In this way Daenerys succeeded in creating the fairer society she envisioned. One that, like Jon, has no place for her, the final tyrant who required usurping.

‘Chosen One’ narratives feel played out, particularly after the white saviour iffiness of Daenerys’ actions in past seasons. I much prefer the show’s conclusion here. The rulers in her stead are a Small Council: Tyrion, always at his best as Hand of a Westerosi King; Samwell as an honest, earnest Grand Maester; the straight-talking, no-nonsense Bronn as Master of Coin; the eminently honourable Ser Brienne as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard; and the Onion Knight Davos Seaworth as a diligent and level-headed Master of Ships. All beneath the umbrella of surveillance-state omniscient demigod Brandon Stark, named after the most famous member of his family, Bran the Builder, original draughtsman of the Wall. If Daenerys’ role was to unmake what her ancestor forged, Bran’s duty is to lay the foundations not for a physical barrier, but a system of governance that will safeguard the realms of men from their lesser impulses. I love this scene because it is light-hearted, low-stakes, and a little bland. This brain trust is setting their minds to the task of managing a civic society. It’s supposed to be boring. Effective leadership should be boring.

small-council-reg.jpg

I’m a viewer entrenched-to-a-fault in the filmmaking weeds. Every time, say, Drogon roars I watch mostly in awe of the human cost in labour and affection spent on matte painting and animation, and capturing not just the sound of a roar, but the shuddering of talons and crackling of spines that makes him feel so real. One of countless examples of the lives put on pause for a decade to actualise this fantasy land. That has to mean something… There’s a pointed line near the start of the feature-length documentary about creating the final season, The Last Watch, where production designer Deborah Riley says seasons four, five, six, and seven were all just preparation for season eight. To achieve film level polish on a TV budget and schedule is remarkable. The production set multiple new records, including breaking their own PB for most stunt people burned on camera. These aren’t nothing achievements; erasing all else, Game of Thrones will be remembered for permanently expanding the potential of the medium. Thrones is a genuine landmark in the history of event television filmmaking, and that cannot be discounted. Later, Riley adds, ‘this season we’ve found the limit of what’s able to be achieved… now everybody realises Game of Thrones has to finish because it cannot get any bigger.’

Obviously endings are important – I’ve argued here precisely why – but the rabid response to Thrones’ conclusion is a vast overemphasis of that importance. Some people think if you can’t stick the landing then what was the point? Others see value in the journey, in the friends we made along the way… I’m upbeat on the final season despite its glaring issues, and I understand why many fans are so upset. The only way to get that mad about a film or TV show is if you love it deeply, if the creators made you love it for years. The creative bravery that originally led Weiss and Benioff to this material also led them to this ending and we have to make peace with that. How dare people call them bad writers; bad writers because they wrote a few mediocre episodes of a TV show that we love precisely because they are actually very good writers?… Okay then. I guess, as love can potentially lead to bitter disappointment the healthy reaction moving forward is to emotionally close off to everything. We all know that famous bon mot, ‘better to have never loved at all, than loved and lost…’

Maybe it’s fitting that the bittersweet conclusion George R.R. Martin always promised was sour beyond events of the plot alone. Can we even judge something so vast, so fast? Why did I even write all this? For now, the way I feel is best described through a sentiment posed in the finale:

Jon, still reeling from the death of his beloved, asks ‘was it worth it?’ Tyrion, himself confused and lost to thoughts of an uncertain future – as are we all – summons a moment of clear perspective, implicitly hopeful of a path wherein we somehow manage to figure it all out. ‘Ask me in ten years.’

game-of-thrones-recap.w700.h467.2x.jpg

Original Sin – Review of ‘Solo: A Star Wars Story’ (dir. Ron Howard)

This is the first negative review I’ve ever taken time to write because Star Wars is my jam, and has earned my undying affection, both in sickness and in health. Spoilers follow.

Screen Shot 2018-05-27 at 00.32.09.png

>>>>TRAILER<<<<

To start, here are two scenarios to consider:

  1. A forty-something man has an apartment filled with Star Wars merchandise worth a small fortune. Wheezing a sign of relief as he comes home from work, he spends the evening trawling Reddit and other messaging boards, picking fights with strangers about plot holes in The Last Jedi. All the while he insists Kathleen Kennedy is ruining Star Wars with SJW propaganda, and that Lucasfilm doesn’t care about ‘real fans’ like him. He creates multiple bot accounts on Rotten Tomatoes to artificially lower the audience score on a movie he hasn’t even had the chance to see yet, in the futile hope that Disney will sense his nebulous dissatisfaction.
  2. It’s a school night. A five year old girl’s parents are scrolling through the movie channels and see The Phantom Menace is starting. The dad chuckles to himself and half-heartedly decides to watch it. A ways in, as soon as Jar-Jar Binks steps in Bantha poop, him and his daughter begin howling with laughter. But they’re laughing for different reasons. The little girl loves it… The movie ends and she’s effusive with excitement. Dad tells her he has the others on DVD if she wants to watch them… She sits in silence through hours of space opera, so clearly enraptured her parents let her stay up past bed time. Days later, she gets to The Force Awakens, and for the first time she sees someone who looks like her wielding the hero’s lightsaber, and something clicks deep inside. She gets mum to buy her a Rey costume, which she wears while rewatching the prequels every lazy Sunday.

Here’s my question: Who is more of a Star Wars fan? I don’t have the answer, I just know fandom isn’t binary, nor is it a points contest. The health of a fandom is not judged by whether everyone agrees on a point, it’s measured by how the members of that fandom treat each other when they don’t agree. What I pray the Star Wars fandom can agree on, however, is that Solo: A Star Wars Story resembles nothing even close to the direction this franchise should take moving forward.

You’re not wrong, Alissa…

Solo is the casual chain restaurant of Star Wars films. Supremely inoffensive, benign, predictable, and comfortably uninventive. The movie definitely isn’t bad, per se; it looks like Star Wars and feels like Star Wars maybe more so than any other film of the Disney era, but only as the corrupt spawn of pure texture-over-text filmmaking. There was talk in the early stages of Solo’s development that the screenplay – penned by Lawrence Kasdan (The Empire Strikes Back and The Force Awakens) with his son, John – was ‘the best Star Wars script ever written.’ Which is peculiar in hindsight, because what holds this film back from being great isn’t Bradford Young’s cinematography that spaceifies western tropes, or the solid – if bland – direction by journeyman Ron Howard. No. What stifles Solo most is this much-hyped script. A script that seldom excavates valuable ore beneath the fertile terrain of its characters, providing no validation of its own existence.

MV5BMTg5NTg2OTk2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDIxMTQ3NDM@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,792_AL_.jpg

A problem Solo shares with Rogue One (the latter a vastly superior film) is the character at the centre of their respective stories doesn’t feel like the main focus. By virtue of its title being indicative of a rebel squad’s dynamic, Rogue One’s depiction of Jyn Erso gets a pass here. But Han Solo is perhaps the fifth most interesting character in a film named after him. He isn’t driven by anything, nor does he earn anything. Han wants to be ‘the best pilot in the galaxy,’ because reasons, and then he just… is that. Guaranteed the idiotic ‘Mary Sue’ complaints levelled at Rey after The Force Awakens will not be held against Han Solo ‘cause patriarchy and toxic masculinity are godawful bedfellows. Han arrives on the screen here fully-formed, cheeky smile ready to flash after any and all daring acts of bravado. The Han Solo we know and love doing courageous things isn’t interesting, he does that ten times before breakfast. What holds the character back is an inability to open up and be vulnerable, which is – surprise! – why so many bro-dudes identify with him. A man infatuated with the person he thinks he is, struggling to come to terms with who he actually is.

MV5BNWJlMDQwMDItZjIyMy00OGY2LThkYjgtNDY0YTRiOWZjMTQwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzQ0MDUyMzg@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1499,1000_AL_.jpg

Solo seems set up early on for Emilia Clarke’s Qi’ra to break Han’s heart and make him regress into the cynic we meet in A New Hope. They’re together, they’re separated, he pledges to get back to her and does, but then the movie never follows through on this promise (running theme alert). With a few shockingly minor script adjustments, Qi’ra could have been the Vesper Lynd to Han Solo’s James Bond in Casino Royale. I got very excited by a section of the teaser trailer that perfectly encapsulates the character of Han Solo (0:46). Qi’ra tells Han, ‘I might be the only person who knows what you really are’, to which Ehrenreich smirks and responds, ‘what’s that?’ as the colour drains from his face and the smile washes away, terrified the perfectly constructed facade is about to come crashing down. In the full scene, Qi’ra adds, ‘the good guy’… (infinite sighs)… If you’re going to make a Han Solo origin film, you need to show me what turned him into the jaded cynic with a deeply rooted heart of gold. Instead we get a recycled and condensed version of Han’s arc from the original trilogy, which feels trite and ineffectual here, whilst undercutting the epiphanies of his journey in Episodes IV through VI.

qira.jpg

Alden Ehrenreich is not a bad Han Solo. Far from it, in fact. His dynamic with Chewbacca is immediately endearing, one of Solo’s saving graces. Although, as I’ve mentioned, script issues make much of his action fall flat. And the reason I draw so much attention to the lacklustre screenplay is because the much-publicised director strife behind the scenes of Solo was borne from Phil Lord and Chris Miller not adhering closely to the script, and instead relying heavily on improvisation, as is their style. Kasdan reportedly stepped in and told them to shoot what’s on the page, a case of Star Wars royalty flexing his muscles. Time, and the court of public opinion will decide whether or not that was to the detriment of the brand he helped make so popular.

The frightful circumstance modern franchise filmmaking seems comfortably nestled in right now is believing a checklist of references acts as worthy substitute for, y’know, drama. In Solo, we see Lando get the mask he’ll wear a decade later to infiltrate Jabba’s palace in Return of the Jedi. One planet is called Mimban, a callback to the setting of the first Star Wars expanded universe book, 1978’s Splinter of the Mind’s Eye. Darth Maul shows up for a hot second, and does nothing except get us hyped for the next instalment, I guess. And on and on and on and on… This film seems to exist solely in order to show us how Han Solo got his stuff (including his goddam last name, in the movie’s most groan-inducing moment). Its sights seem limited to providing fans the superficial thrill of seeing the famed Kessel Run navigated in only twelve parsecs, or the star-cross’d meet-cute of Han finding Chewbacca, or how he acquired the Millennium Falcon. But it never even tries to tie these seminal events into his character, which is an unnerving blindspot from a screenwriter this accomplished. The creators could have thrown in a curveball like Qi’ra being the one to pilot the Falcon through the Kessel Run, which morphs Han’s throwaway line in A New Hope into a poignantly empty boast. Hell, just do something risky…

MV5BMTc4MjUzMDMyNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDUzNDUyNTM@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,744_AL_.jpg

All that said, there’s hope for the future. The Last Jedi was a bona fide marvel; Episode IX is next up, then maybe an Obi-Wan Kenobi movie, followed by a Rian Johnson trilogy, and Benioff and Weiss’s project(s). At this point, I’m down for a Lando spinoff. Give Donald Glover and his longtime directing partner Hiro Murai a blank cheque, let them make whatever the fuck they want, and squeeze it into the release schedule. Glover is a peerless creator and self-professed Star Wars fan. Given creative impunity he’d no doubt make something out there and weird, while still doing the franchise justice and riling up a few more petulant manbabies along the way. Cast Janelle Monáe as Lando’s new anthropomorphised droid partner while you’re at it. 

falcon.jpg

I’ll end with this. Solo wastes the excellent Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Lando’s current droid lover. She’s named L3-37, which is leet for ‘Leet’, the language of numbers and symbols arranged to resemble words. It’s an apt name, and kind of a perfect microcosm of this film. Too on the nose, with no deeper philosophical point to make. ‘Leet’ can also be used to describe formidable prowess and accomplishment. Sadly, as a cinematic artefact, Solo: A Star Wars Story has little interest in such trivial things. But it’s okay, I know where Han got his blaster and there’s a bit where he shoots first.

solo-a-star-wars-story-uk-poster.jpg