Showing posts with label Jim Broadbent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Broadbent. Show all posts

Sunday, September 4, 2022

Steven Spielberg: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

In defense of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, there is at least some kind of push to make the movie distinct from its predecessors. Where the first three films paid homage to serials of the ‘30s and ‘40s, Crystal Skull accounts for the 19-year gap between between this fourth installment in the franchise and 1989’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade by shifting its inspirations accordingly.

Here, the root inspiration is ‘50s-era science fiction (and its attendant Cold War subtext), which, in a way, makes the film unique, at least in relation to the other Indy movies. Instead of relics with supernatural might, the treasured objects of the film’s title are mysterious, perfectly formed skulls with strange powers, powers not of brute strength but of mental manipulation. In keeping with anti-Communist paranoia, the weapon here is the power to brainwash without fail. It’s a clever twist that didn’t get enough credit upon the film’s initial release; the only critic I can recall even mentioning it was, of all people, routine Spielberg-basher Jonathan Rosenbaum.

The film opens not with the usual bombastic, audience-grabbing stunt but with a light-hearted, rock ‘n roll-themed drag race between soldiers headed for a military base and a car filled with high school greasers and girls. The same Western expanses Indy rode through on a horse and train as a young adult now sport the freshly paved lanes of Eisenhower’s interstate system. And when the race ends and the military convoy arrives outside Area 51, Spielberg switches over to Cold War invasion terror when the soldiers turn out to be Commies in disguise, looking for deadly secrets to use against America. It’s a low-key opening for the franchise, but one that displays a refreshing willingness to grow and change. It scarcely feels like an Indiana Jones film at all, an intriguing change of pace that shows off the director’s playfulness.

And then Indy shows up. The second our archaeologist hero is heaved from a car trunk, the sheer force of his iconography commandeers the film. Spielberg only exacerbates Ford’s enduring charisma, ironically, by not showing him immediately. He instead introduces Indy by his synecdochical item of clothing, his fedora, then through a silhouette on a car door. By the time the camera twirls around to capture Ford’s aged but still grizzled face, the director has more or less served the role of James Brown’s announcer, whipping the crowd into a frenzy before throwing over to the main event. By introducing Indy through his shadow, though, Spielberg inadvertently suggests that he is a Nosferatu-like monster, come to steal away a potentially interesting, individual effort and make into the usual tat.


Indeed, Indy’s appearance marks the start of a gradual downturn in quality that lasts the entire film, sapping the initial burst of energy and creativity until Crystal Skull ultimately morphs into a pandering, listless sequel that fails to capitalize upon its ideas. It starts early: forced by the Russians to help them find an alien carcass that holds the key to their plans, Indy of course ends up in a huge chase to escape, a genuinely impressive stunt that shows Ford’s willingness to still do at least some of his own stunt work. But as he careens around the vast warehouse slamming into objects in a military transport vehicle, the camera stays behind one mangled box to reveal the Ark of the Covenant, hidden at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It’s a trite moment, one that breaks the spell momentarily cast by the sequence and serves only to placate an audience assumed to be getting bored already.

The rest of the film generally plunders past installments for inspiration. The wry father-son dynamic of Last Crusade, as much a parody of Spielberg’s pet theme as one of its finest presentations, is presented in inverse. Now Indiana is the absent, crotchety father, made to contend with the sudden appearance of a son he did not know he had. And just as Indy’s impetuousness and hands-on approach to archaeology caused conflicts with his studious dad, so too does Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) represent everything Indiana hates. But where the rift between Indy and Henry Sr. played out almost as a professional and personal rivalry, making them brilliant comic and action foils, Mutt’s juxtaposition is simpler. Stacked against Indy’s encyclopedic knowledge and lifetime of academia, Mutt is a greaser dropout whose flits of archaeological know-how seem less deepening personality quirks than necessary add-ons to ensure he’s not total dead weight.

Because of this facile contrast, based in the easy humor of poking Indy for his age, Ford and LaBeouf display none of the chemistry that made Ford and Connery one of the best father-son pairings in film. LaBeouf’s attempts at swagger come off as hollow arrogance, and he lacks the presence to hold his own against Ford’s laconic put-downs. Part of this isn’t LaBeouf’s fault: the spiky energy between Ford and Connery came from an entire history Indy and his father shared off-screen. Thrust upon Doctor Jones as the son he did not know he had, Mutt is as unfamiliar to the hero as he is to the audience. Mutt feels more like Short Round than he does a son. But at least Short Round had comic timing; LaBeouf’s awkward posturing communicates none of the rebellious cool of all the ‘50s teen heroes he studied for the role. Not even Spielberg can make him a striking figure, framing the boy’s introduction through mist at a train station but making his sudden appearance instantly dull and extraneous. The camera immediately picks up on what the script did not: this character does not belong.


As the film presents Mutt as Indy’s son, it must also bring out the boy’s mother, leading to the return of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Probably the most beloved character in the franchise besides Indy himself, Marion should be a welcome sight, and she even avoids the damsel pitfall into which she fell in Raiders’ second half. But there’s something off about her from the moment she appears, a strange look in Allen’s face that suggests she’s so happy to be included that she might break at any moment, turn to the camera and thank Spielberg just for letting her be a part of this wonderful project. It obliterates the edge she gave Marion back in 1981, making her look about as vacant and loopy as John Hurt as a professor driven mad by the strange, thrumming energy of the crystal skulls (vaguely recalling Roy’s obsessive, alien-tweaked behavior in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Of course, crowds flock to see Indiana Jones movies not for depth of character but for the quality of the stunts. Unfortunately, the tactile quality of the old film’s sequences has been swapped for vast, empty CGI that utterly drains Crystal Skull of the suspense and thrill of its predecessors. When the Russians open the warehouse doors at the beginning, Spielberg cuts to an extreme long shot that swoops about as the outsized enormity of the place is illuminated by truck headlights that burn as large and bright as twin suns. It shows off Spielberg’s bombast, but it lacks feeling. Compare this master shot of the warehouse to the one that closes Raiders: that film used its own trickery to make its warehouse seemingly endless, employing a matte painting that creates the illusion of a storage facility that stretches into the vanishing point. Nevertheless, even the old methods of fakery have a texture to them that the too-slick computer animation here lacks.


(That the CGI is so sloppy in Crystal Skull is surprising given the typical level of quality of computer-animated effects in Spielberg’s film, from the landmark, still-gorgeous dinosaurs of Jurassic Park to the finely detailed, artfully odd designs of War of the Worlds. Compare the undated quality of the effects of those films with a scene here of ants swarming a particularly bullish Russian soldier who serves as primary henchman. Granted, CGI faces are always hard to pull off, but try not to laugh at the utterly pedestrian quality of this shot, which looks as if it had been animated in the mid-‘90s, not four years ago.)


The most famous example of the overinflated, stake-less action is, of course, the “nuking the fridge” scene. The moment of total disconnect from the movie when I first saw it, this sequence no longer bothers me as it did. There’s no denying that the sight of Indy surviving a nuclear explosion by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator is exceedingly stupid, the sort of thing that is clearly meant to be a gag but is then played too straight to work as a joke. But the mock suburb targeted for the test strike is admittedly funny, Spielberg and Kaminski lightening the frame to capture the treacly, bubblegum view of ‘50s middle-class comfort shortly before it is obliterated by the military-industrial complex that constructed that illusion. And though the sight of the Indy-filled fridge soaring through the air and slamming into the ground with enough force to liquefy the old man is too stupid to bear, the ending shot of Indy looking up at the mushroom cloud sucking up dust to blot out the sun is as surreal and hauntingly beautiful as anything in War of the Worlds.


For me, the more garish sequence is the epically disastrous centerpiece in the Amazon. With both Indy’s band and the Russians hunting for El Dorado, Spielberg collides the two in an extended sequence that awkwardly mashes up several distinct setpieces into one clumsy whole. The action moves from a truck containing Indy, Marion and Mutt as prisoners to their eventual escape and takeover of that vehicle and others, moves into a sword fight held across two cars, an Aguirre-esque rain of monkeys, the aforementioned bit with the ants and, finally, a trip in an amphibian vehicle down not one, but three waterfalls.

In many ways, this sequence recalls the similarly epic Bagghar sequence from last year’s The Adventures of Tintin. That film’s centerpiece was a masterpiece of mise-en-scène, an unbroken animated shot that kept piling on information into the frame until it threatened to collapse under the strain. But here, Spielberg’s direction lacks any flow; the monkeys, bullet ants and waterfalls do not clearly occupy the same space, not in the way that everything in Bagghar somehow makes sense. When Mutt gets sucked up into the tree canopies an finds the monkeys, it’s as if he’s gone to another place entirely. The same is true of the sudden appearance of the ant mounds, or the almost inevitable waterfalls.

I know some who pardon this sequence, arguing that it is meant to be taken in light jest, but the previous Indiana Jones films all achieved a lighthearted, effervescent energy in their stunts without completely tossing out the tension or a loopy verisimilitude. Can I believe natives hundreds of years ago carved a perfectly spherical boulder and somehow hoisted it into a booby trap that can detect a difference in weight seemingly by the ounce? No, but I can buy it at the start of Raiders because the direction is so exhilarating and the layout of the tomb so clear simply from a few glances. This sequence holds no weight at all, and it’s more visually incoherent than Spielberg’s handheld camerawork.

The only setpiece that really works is the nighttime grave-robbing scene where Indy and Mutt discover a crystal skull of their own. That the scene works at all is somewhat to the film’s detriment, as it is the sequence that most resembles (or rips off) the other movies in the franchise. Like similar sequences in the other films, this is a bridging moment, with Indy wallowing around some grimy, dark place looking for the next piece of the puzzle. This scene lacks the same icky factor of the rat- and bug-infested catacombs of past efforts, but the surreal slapstick of natives diving in and out of holes to torment Indy and Mutt is the only time the comedic approach to the stunts is genuinely funny and not out-of-place. Granted, it resembles a Scooby Doo episode more than an Indiana Jones setpiece, but I’ll take what I can get with this movie. I'm also fond of the effect of an immaculately preserved body vaporizing upon contact with oxygen, a delightfully gruesome aside.


I have not yet mentioned the film’s primary antagonist, Irina Spalko, played with spiky dispassion and an inconsistent accent by Cate Blanchett. Like other villains of the series, Spalko is the avaricious foil to Jones’ prosocial motives for finding artifacts. If anything, she may be the purest contrast for the hero yet, her thirst for power taking the form of a Faustian hunt for ultimate knowledge that is not too different from Jones’ quests of secular enlightenment. Blanchett’s pristine beauty makes her a striking villain aesthetically, but she combines the least memorable aspects of Indy baddies and female characters into one empty shell of a character. The problem also is that the villains in Indiana Jones movies are typically just stand-ins for a larger evil force that can be despised: ask someone who the bad guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and you’ll probably hear “Nazis” instead of “Belloq” or “Toht.” Commies don’t hold the same lingering allure/repulsion that Nazis do, further draining Spalko of her thin presence.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ends with some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about inter-dimensional beings and a hideously animated maelstrom of a flying saucer taking off, but its worst image may be its last, of the literal riding into the sunset of Last Crusade replaced by a perfunctory wedding. Like other aspects of the movie, this coda is intended to show Indy coming to terms with his age. But for a movie that tries so hard to argue that the old guy’s still got it, these concessions to maturation seem no more than light gags, instead of the criticism they might have been. Crystal Skull’s acknowledgement of its hero’s age might have been a comment on all heroes and how they do not remain frozen in their youthful triumph. That it is instead a lazy, vaudevillian throwaway only compounds the potential wasted on a return to one of the most popular film franchises in history.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Another Year (Mike Leigh, 2011)

[Note: Unlike a number of 2010 films I'm counting for 2011 consideration, Another Year did manage to get a legitimate limited run in the States (not just festival screenings) last year, but it did so starting Dec. 29. Hence, it's being put in with this year's lot. Also, I want the chance to praise it once more at the end of the year.]

Tom and Gerri Hepple are the best and worst friends a person could have: they are so cheery, warm and content that one could tell them anything and feel better for it. But they also serve as a baiting bug zapper for every broken individual who hasn't achieved happiness past that imaginary but oh-so-tangible point of no return. Drawn by the allure of what seems a perfect life, those lonely, miserable people suddenly find themselves confronted with everything they aren't, and it sucks being the least happy person in a room. It usually leads to yet more unhappiness.


One almost does not need to say that Another Year is a Mike Leigh film as it is almost self-evidently so. Not only does it feature a number of actors who've collaborated with the director before, it displays the cynical but human understanding Leigh has honed over his career, a psychology he achieves through his trademark interaction with and faith in actors. After the deceptively sweet Happy-Go-Lucky—which revealed its own pains and complications in its ostensibly two-dimensional lead and her (bi)polar opposite played by Eddie Marsan—Leigh returns to a more downbeat fare, though the portrait of romantic bliss and Platonic turmoil makes for one of Leigh's most emotionally well-rounded films.

Leigh divides his film into seasons, beginning, appropriately, with spring. Warm but dim yellows dominate the palette, as if Leigh began shooting while the lighting was still being set up. Tiny buds of narrative form, and some even drop off and fail to blossom: the film opens with a woman (Imelda Staunton) trying to fix her insomnia and reluctantly agreeing to see a counselor, revealed to be Gerri (Ruth Sheen), one half of an almost preciously apropos couple with Tom (Jim Broadbent), a geological engineer. We manage to meet Gerri before Janet makes her way to her office, making Janet's tangential relation to the film potentially indulgent, but her scene with Gerri allows the audience to get a gauge of the sort of calm, caring person Gerri is. She makes a career out of letting drunks and depressants who don't want to talk to her foist their misery onto her, and she only tries to bring it further out in order to rid patients of it.

She's a wonderful, natural listener, but not even she can contend with friend and co-worker Mary (Lesley Manville, who shoots to the top of an already-impressive list of performances captured in a Leigh film). If the first 10 minutes or so of the film are tranquil and blooming to fit with the metaphor of spring and gentle maturation, Mary explodes onto the scene like a hormone imbalance during puberty. She speaks, loudly and ceaselessly, about her problems even as she tries to find some spin on her life that makes her out to be a tragic hero. At a bar, she dominates a conversation with Gerri with self-centered talk that puffs up a transparent confidence, but when left alone, Mary tries awkwardly to flirt with a man across the bar, only for his date to arrive.

Amazingly, this might be the least uncomfortable moment of Mary's time on-screen. Every season, she arrives at Tom and Gerri's idyllic, friendly home and promptly drags out her demons like muddy shoes scraped over white carpet. Mary's tone of voice betrays jagged envy of Tom and Gerri's life; she hits on their adult son Joe (Oliver Maltman), who occasionally seems to return her affection, if only out of discomfort; and her drunken face is so slack and drooping it's no wonder every thought that floats to the surface of her wine-soaked brain falls out of her gob. Compared to Marsan's rage in Happy-Go-Lucky, Manville's projected self-loathing is so inherently sympathetic that Tom and Gerri's habitually tested patience with her feels genuine. At the same time, being trapped in a room with someone like Mary can be as awful and terrifying as being forced to contend with Scott, and one meets many more Marys in this world than Scotts.

As the seasons progress, other troubled souls find their way to Tom and Gerri's tranquil Eden, each contrasting with the altered mise-en-scène of the films distinct quarters. The pregnant doctor speaking to Janet at the start of the film arrives at a party in summer with her new baby, the golden-green film tone and static air feeling like the stillness of the noonday sun. But the bolder mood also brings Ken (a heartrending Peter Wight), an old friend of Tom's reduced to a bloated and mumbling mess by alcoholism (he looks as if one could use the ever-present flop sweat on his brow to make martinis). Ken is in the same freefall as Mary, but he recognizes it and breaks down in shame. At the party, he hints at a past with Mary, but she reacts with annoyance and disgust at him throughout, incapable of seeing how much of her is reflected in his tear-stained, blubbery face. Or maybe she can.

A rolling mist tumbles over autumn, breaking up the still, hot air of summer. The car Mary bought as a futile investment in personal stability has begun to fall apart, and her fleeting attempts to remain cheery cease when she learns Joe has a girlfriend, whose incessant sweetness carries a grating edge as Leigh subtly moves into Mary's POV for a tense dinner that nearly brings out Tom's and Gerri's exasperation with their friend. Gerri even starts bristling at Mary's inane, self-serving declarations instead of usually nodding along in a desire to see the rants end.

By the time the frozen blues of winter arrive, everything is in both chaos and horrible calm, the events on-screen more tumultuous than ever but the energy sapped in the cold. Leigh even manages to introduce some new characters who feel as developed and familiar as those who've come through the whole film—besides, one look at David Bradley as Tom's grieving brother, what with his sunken, scarcely blinking eyes and a mustache so anachronistic he resembles a ghost of the Old West, and it becomes somehow unthinkable that he should have appeared any time before the glacial final segment. The quiet chat he has with Mary while Tom and Gerri are away is one of stark horror, the man who actually has a reason to fall apart forming a laconic rock for Mary's withered but persevering self-pity to use as a tether for her drifting mental state.

We all know someone like Mary, and maybe we've actually been her from time to time. Manville plays her as a woman who cannot help but drag others into her pain, no matter how oblivious she is to the woes she catalogs. "I'm very much a glass half-full kind of girl" she says at one point without a trace of irony. At first I didn't want to call what Broadbent and Sheen have "chemistry," feeling it was a word reserved for young, passionate interplay. Then I realized that's what was so impressive about them: they aren't capturing the feel of two people brushing against each other and feeling a spark to chase for two hours. They're a pair capable of communicating barrel-aged love, strengthened and refined by time. It's clear why so much misery arrives at their door: with a world in all forms of turbulence, Tom and Gerri's stability and unbroken spirits almost give them the air of savants (and for all their simplicity, they are both qualified, educated people, as Leigh stresses in several scenes).

Leigh's reputation for cynicism as some sort of character flaw is one of the more insipid of the two-dimensional views of director outlooks (it doesn't quite match the inanity of calling the Coen brothers "nihilists," but it'll do). Another Year, however, offers one of the director's clearest, and best-shot, views on humanity, one unburdened by the abject despair of films like Naked or Secrets & Lies. There is awkward humor in Mary's scene-upending, run-on plays for sympathy, but we're never made to mock or chide her, only to recognize that person, so beaten down that elevation seems impossible so, on conscious and subconscious levels, she seeks to bring others to her sunken plateau. But there are also people in this world like Tom and Gerri, and they're not as rare as we might think.

Here, Leigh gets out whatever grouchiness he might have in the fussiness of the visual detail—using different film stock for each season and aging every prop realistically as the year wears on—and lets his characters exist in all their tactile relatability. The title of the film contains some of Leigh's caustic wit, suggesting the dull, monotonous slog of life, but it also contains the hope of starting anew. Though the film ends on an ambiguous note that leans toward the interpretation that Mary is stuck in her cycle of loathing and insular pity, the possibility remains that she can repair her life and her friendships. More far-fetched, but no less believable, things have happened in Mike Leigh films.