Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Clint Eastwood has undeniably left an indelible mark on modern American cinema, both as an actor and director. From his work on Westerns like High Plains Drifter and Unforgiven to his Oscar-winning dramas Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima. But what about lesser-known, underrated flicks? One of Eastwood’s hidden gems, which he both directed and starred in, is his 1980 Western dramedy Bronco Billy.
Why is this movie worth your time? Keep reading to find out. 😊 What’s It About [NOTE: This section contains minor spoilers for “Bronco Billy.” If you’d rather see the film for yourself, skip to the next section.] The story of Bronco Billy follows a rundown traveling circus with “the fastest gun in the West,” Billy McCoy (Clint Eastwood), as its grand finale. The show is hemorrhaging money (causing its stars to essentially be working for free), and Billy’s female assistant quits after being nicked in the leg by his throwing knife during the finale. Upon arriving in a new town, Billy encounters soon-to-be newlyweds Antoinette Lily (Sondra Locke) and John Arlington (Geoffrey Lewis) while trying to get a permit for his circus. Soon, Billy and Antoinette’s fates become intertwined as she evades marrying Arlington (whom she despises) by joining the circus as Billy’s new assistant. Despite her inclination to improvise, she helps the show attract more viewers and start becoming successful. However, the show continues facing obstacles in the form of some of the performers being arrested or their tent burning down and thus leaving the show in ruins. In a desperate attempt to keep it all afloat, Billy proposes some wacky schemes to try and salvage the show and ends up enduring humiliation for the sake of the show. Furthermore, while Billy confronts his inner demons via alcoholism, Antoinette (whom Billy affectionately refers to as “Miss Lily”) reflects on whether or not she should return to her luxurious lifestyle or stick with the new family she has found with Billy’s traveling circus. Why It’s Worth Watching Honestly, I have little to say about Bronco Billy but not because it isn’t good. Quite the opposite; its strengths, while singular in nature, are potent enough to warrant your time watching it. In general, this film is Clint Eastwood effectively parodying both the Western genre as a whole and his career as a Western movie star specifically. By playing this specific protagonist, Eastwood (both in his performance and direction) pulls off self-parody that not only effectively lampoons his image in Hollywood but also never steps into the pitfalls identifiable of an artist trying to say something through such self-parody. Instead, he’s simply having fun bringing this character that he’s played to a comedy that actually has layers (unlike the enigmatic gunslingers that Eastwood played in films like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, High Plains Drifter, or Pale Rider). His ability to self-assuredly make fun of himself sufficiently adds to the overall lighthearted tone of the movie’s screenplay and atmosphere. Simply put, it’s not trying to be anything more than a fun, breezy comedy about a bunch of ne’er-do-wells and miscreants barely getting by in life. In this sense, watching their misadventures go awry is entertainment enough because the film isn’t asking you to accept it for anything more than a good, old-fashioned, fun time. While some cinephiles may prefer the darker Westerns of Eastwood’s career (Unforgiven comes to mind), I personally enjoy that he was able to pull off this kind of story in that genre that, for so long, relied on for the sake of higher drama. Sometimes that works, but (in my humble opinion) Eastwood’s career is overstuffed with such takes on Westerns. To that extent, Bronco Billy stands out from the crowd by living up to its potential as a fun romp. To be fair, this probably would not have worked if not for how much the premise of the film’s story balances silliness with grounded realism. By telling a story of down-on-their-luck traveling circus performers trying (and failing) to pull off cowboy schemes in the 1970s that has genuine moments of human emotion, Eastwood injects several funny moments, character interactions, and antics without ever undermining the more dramatic moments. To the contrary, Bronco Billy balances the silly with the sardonic to a thoroughly enjoyable effect. And there you have it. If I haven’t convinced you to check out Bronco Billy than I’m not sure that it’s the movie for you. But if anything I’ve described above in terms of a surprisingly enjoyable comedy that invokes Western imagery and themes for the sake of parody, than I am confident that it’s a movie more than worth your time. Have I convinced you to check out Clint Eastwood’s Bronco Billy? What’s a movie that you feel is underappreciated? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by WikiImages from Pixabay Several times now, I have written about all kinds of war movies. I’ve talked about pro-war films like Glory and Black Hawk Down, and anti-war films such as Paths of Glory and Born on the Fourth of July. I’ve dissected the war epic by examining films like Spartacus and Braveheart. And plenty other personal favorites, from Good Morning, Vietnam to The Pianist. There are so many great war movies, as these past blogs prove.
But, if I were to ask you “What is the definitive war movie?” what would your answer be? Perhaps not everyone would agree. However, I contend that there is only one film that most people would agree lives up to such a designation. And it is none other than Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. Without question, this World War II epic remains arguably the pinnacle of the war movie genre nearly twenty-five years to the day since it was released. Why? I guess you’ll have to keep reading to find out… 😉 [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Saving Private Ryan.” You have been warned.] The Good Not all war movies look to actual specific events for inspiration, and the ones that do aren’t always effective at pulling off graceful tellings of true stories. However, Saving Private Ryan is undoubtedly an exception to this generalization. It uses the incredible experiences of actual people expertly in crafting a compelling narrative fitting to its World War II setting. For the unfamiliar, screenwriter Robert Rodat (Fly Away Home, The Patriot) was inspired by a family mentioned in historian Stephen Ambrose’s book on D-Day. The Nilands (the family in question) sent four sons to war and only two came back (even though, at the time, three were thought to have died and the War Department dispatched a team to retrieve the youngest—Frederick William “Fritz” Niland—and bring him home). It’s stories like this that deserve the cinematic treatment, and Rodat working with Spielberg made for a fantastic duo to ground this story in the horrifying realities of war while simultaneously constructing an engaging narrative. Which gets to another good thing about Saving Private Ryan: the pacing. Simply put, for a movie that’s nearly three hours long never really feels plodding or laborious in its runtime. With the exception of the dialogue-heavy, quiet scene in the church, the film keeps things moving without ever inorganically rushing the narrative. In other words, all the meaningful beats of the story (i.e. the iconic opening D-Day scene, the characters finding the “fake Ryan” and the real Private Ryan, the climactic battle at Ramelle) flow perfectly from one to the next. For a movie this long, few filmmakers can ensure the audience is constantly engaged with the story and fixated on the characters. Of course, this speaks to the talent and craft of Spielberg’s creative team on display here. The Great In my humble opinion, any great war flick is one where the audience not only likes the characters in danger during battle but is invested in them living or dying. Not just them as fellow human beings, but those specific characters. And, to be honest, it’s difficult for me to think of another war film with as strong of an ensemble cast that invests its audience in their personal journeys than Saving Private Ryan. First, the supporting players that all excel in their respective roles as part of Company C, 2nd Rangers Battalion. Our first casualty is Adrian Caparzo (Vin Diesel), who sees the least amount of screentime from our eight-member ensemble due to being shot and killed by a German sniper in the first act. Despite his relative lack of screentime, Diesel does a great job as the “likeable asshole” who busts the chops of the Company’s newest addition, the interpreter and typist Timothy Upham (Jeremy Davies), before reminding the audience of what’s at stake when he is killed while trying to take a scared, endangered French girl. Next, we have combat medic Irwin Wade (Giovanni Ribisi) whose important role among the group needs no explanation. As a medic, he does all he can to help the wounded wherever he goes whenever he can. Thus, the fact that he is the second man of Company C killed in action (and forty minutes after Caparzo’s death) manages to hit even harder. Not only have our ensemble lost the one person who can save their lives going forward, but together with Diesel their deaths help to immediately develop the tense atmosphere between Company C and their target, Private James Francis Ryan (Matt Damon), within minutes of meeting. Our other two supporting players in Company C? Caparzo’s best friend Stanley “Fish” Mellish (Adam Goldberg) and first-class sniper Daniel Jackson (Barry Pepper). In their own ways, they add a charm mixed with grit to the group dynamic. On the one hand, Mellish’s Jewish heritage gives him particular stake in the war against the Nazis (and a poignantly emotional scene to cap off the iconic opening battle scene in Normandy). Conversely, Jackson remains something of a rock amongst the group as a reliable killer willing to risk his life to save his comrades. What is perhaps most memorable, however, about both Mellish and Jackson is the manner of their deaths which I find ironic considering how polar-opposite they are from one another. Despite doing his damnedest sniping from the bell tower, Jackson is unable to face down a tank which brings his end so quickly and unceremoniously. Mellish, conversely, is slowly and torturously stabbed in the heart by the unnamed German soldier (Joerg Stadler) who Company C previously held captive before letting him go. On top of all the other deaths in that climactic final battle in Ramelle, the starkly contrasting fates that these characters respectively meet hit hard in ways that are different yet equally impactful and heart wrenching. But that’s only half of Company C, which gets to the four lead performances that (in my humble opinion) stand out as the best of the movie. First and foremost, Tom Hanks who brilliantly brings to life our leading man/everyman Captain John H. Miller. The way in which Spielberg centers the mystery of Miller’s backstory as a fixation of the other soldiers makes for some compelling, character-driven drama in the second act. But, overall, Miller represents the reluctant hero that knows the extreme risk of his men’s mission and doesn’t even necessarily agree with the moral gymnastics put forth by the Army to justify sending eight soldiers deep into enemy territory to rescue one. Yet, he never wavers in his determination to try and rescue Private Ryan out of his belief that doing so will be his ticket home. The two major dramatic forces at either of Miller’s sides are Private Richard Reiben (Edward Burns) and Sergeant Mike Horvath (Tom Sizemore). In many ways, these characters serve as polar opposites. Whereas Horvath is the veteran soldier unwavering in his loyalty to the authority above him, Reiben is the hotheaded gunner that can snap at a moment’s notice (particularly in direct protest against Miller’s decisions as captain). These stark differences are not more apparent than in the scene in question where Reiben fully embraces a gunshot to the head from Horvath’s pistol after refusing to follow Miller’s orders out of retaliation for Miller’s decision to let the German soldier “Mickey Mouse” go free. Without question, the tension between these two beta males is one of the best parts of this story. However, the character that I was always fascinated with and gripped by ever since first watching this film as a kid was Timothy Upham (Jeremy Davies), the newbie to Company C. As the newest addition to the group, he is not only singled out regularly as part of what can be described as stereotypical hazing but his ignorance of combat due to spending much of his time overseas as a typist makes him the prime eyes through which the audience can see the story play out. Rather than a badass sniper like Jackson or a down-and-dirty brawler like “Fish,” Upham is a straight-up coward. In fact, he wimps from doing the brave act multiple times during the climactic battle involving the bridge in Ramelle (which plays a role in getting Fish killed). While other actors could make this come off as annoying or degrading, Davies fully embraces Upham’s pure-hearted humanity that makes him so relatable and, thus, an effective perspective on war for the audience to give themselves over to. Which makes his one brave act—to avenge the death of Fish by killing “Mickey Mouse”—all the more tragic. Despite his best efforts to befriend (and perhaps turn) the German captive at the tail end of the second act, Upham recognizes that the man standing before him with his hands in the air surrendering is nothing but that: an enemy soldier who must be put down. He exemplifies the genuine human struggle of making an impossibly difficult choice in circumstances that (for most) are simply unimaginable. Which is why, in my humble opinion, Upham is the best character of Saving Private Ryan. Alas, it is not the characters that make this film a truly groundbreaking masterpiece. But something else entirely. The Groundbreaking That “something” is, without a doubt, Spielberg’s tackling of the combat sequences and violence. Regarding the former, Saving Private Ryan earned its reputation for having one of the (if not THE) most iconic opening battle sequence of any war film to date. In shooting this sequence the way he did, Spielberg aimed to “bring the audience onto the stage with me” to prevent viewers from becoming “spectators” but rather “demand them to be participants with those kids who had never seen combat before in real life.”[1] And damn does it work. Nobody who has seen just the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan can tell me they didn’t feel fully immersed in the blood-soaked sands of Omaha Beach, Normandy while seeing dozens of men get shot, blown up, disemboweled, dismembered, and burned alive. The adrenaline spike from watching this helps the viewer vicariously experience the physiological sensation of being in combat (at least, as close to that as one can get without actually being a soldier in an active warzone). Simply put, the D-Day battle scene of this movie more than earns its reputation as a groundbreaking example of action-packed war cinema that, in many ways, overshadows so many other aspects of the film. That being said, I feel that people too often hold up this sequence in lieu of giving much-due credit to the movie’s exhilarating climactic fight between the rag-tag GIs led by Miller and Ryan’s companies and the Nazi troops trying to seize the bridge in the small town of Ramelle. Not only does this sequence include some fantastic character moments and shockingly tragic deaths (as I described above), but the way it brings the themes of the film to a fittingly messy conclusion makes for, in my humble opinion, one of the strongest third-act finales of any war movie in modern cinematic history. Woven into this final battle is, above all, Private Ryan watching virtually all of the men that risked their lives trudging through enemy territory to find him and send him home perish. Ultimately, it is Miller’s death that hits Ryan the most as Hanks mutters his character’s last soul-crushing (yet simultaneously uplifting) line: “Earn this.” Just picturing this moment in my mind while writing it makes me shudder excitably. Thus, it serves as the basis for a fantastic conclusion to the arcs of many of the characters (notably Miller, Ryan, and Upham). None of these battle sequences, however, would resonate as much as they do without the appropriate levels of blood, gore, and viscera present within them. While I understand some viewers’ squeamishness surrounding this film due to the horrifying, up-close-and-personal violence that defines its combat aesthetics, I think such a point is ultimately moot. While there are some war movies that rely too much on excessive gore, Spielberg’s approach is sensible and gracious by paying respect to the raw, visceral experience of modern-day combat that veterans of World War II (and other conflicts) often struggle to efficiently describe for the many of us who have never witnessed such unspeakable horrors. As Stanley Kubrick once said, “If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed.” Perhaps this isn’t true for every single conceivable possibility, I think that Spielberg shows that a movie can help familiarize audiences with what it’s like to be a soldier in a way that both exhilarates and fascinates the minds of moviegoers while also paying the utmost respect to those whose lives were actually put on the line (and lost) in such situations. Thus, Saving Private Ryan never exploits veterans for sheer entertainment, but instead looks to their travails in war as inspiration to tell a grounded story and show people how hellish and infernal war truly is. Conclusion Need I say more? Saving Private Ryan remains, in my humble opinion, the gold standard for the war movie genre and has yet to be beaten. From its masterful pacing and empathetic characters to its quintessential exploration of the violent horrors of war through thoroughly exhilarating battle sequences, the film is just as relevant (both artistically and historically) one-quarter of a century after it first came out and caused some American military veterans to flee theaters due to how uncannily realistic it was in putting their experiences on the big screen. What are your thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan? What other war movies would you recommend? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst [1] https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/private-spielberg “The truth is…I am Iron Man.” – Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey, Jr.) “I think that part of the reason that Iron Man was so successful was that we really chose to break new ground in a new area tonally…the way we depict the hero, what his abilities are. It felt fresh in a genre that is beginning to feel stale if it's not done with the proper amount of inspiration and a strong voice or tone.” – Jon Favreau Today, I continue my summer blog series about the history of the comic book movie genre by examining an important watershed moment in its modern evolution: the birth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Did comic book movies exist before 2008? Yes. Was the genre forever changed by Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios? Absolutely. In my humble opinion, the two films that laid the groundwork for not only Feige’s superhero cinematic universe but also the genre going forward are Jon Favreau’s Iron Man and Joss Whedon’s The Avengers. Since I have written about both of these films before, click here for my condensed thoughts on both Iron Man and The Avengers. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED!! [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Iron Man” and “The Avengers.” You have been warned.] Image by Bùi Xuân Trường from Pixabay Iron Man (2008) For a summary of the production and release of Iron Man, click here. While Christopher Nolan took the first step towards cracking the code for a great superhero origin story in 2005 with Batman Begins, Jon Favreau came along three years later and brought his own spin to this story. Ironically, both directors took rather similar characters (at least on the surface) to make wildly different movies tonally that both succeed on their own terms and remain essential to understanding the potential of this genre today. Whereas Nolan’s take on Bruce Wayne was that of an immature, self-isolating billionaire who channels his fear and torment about his tragic past into vigilantism for the greater good of Gotham City, Favreau reinvents the character of “genius billionaire playboy philanthropist” Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) to make audiences forever fall in love with his charm, wit, sarcasm, and narcissistic attitude. In other words, most producers today probably would not decide to kickstart a superhero franchise with a character like Tony Stark. But, I and many other fans are grateful for this choice. Unlike purely good characters such as Captain America or Superman, Stark is severely flawed. His near-psychopathic self-obsession pushes away any kind of stable support system with the exception of his personal assistant Virginia “Pepper” Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and corporate liaison to the military Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Terrence Howard). These mixed-bag relationships, along with his own actions towards others, help to define Stark’s character in the first act as the embodiment of class privilege and the military-industrial complex. Ultimately, it takes Stark’s own life being put in danger for him to fully understand how destructive his weapons technology can be in the wrong hands. With tons of help from fellow captive Ho Yinsen (Shaun Toub), Stark constructs a makeshift suit of weaponized armor that he uses to escape an Afghanistan cave. Upon returning home, his epiphany about the role he has played in the deaths of innocent people leads him to design a new kind of weapon: the Iron Man suit, which he plans to use to stop bad people from getting hands on his company’s weapons ever again. Similar to Bruce in Batman Begins, Stark originally discovers his “powers” for selfish reasons but through recognizing a systemic problem in the world comes to the realization that he could use his money, intelligence, and technology to try and solve that problem. Simply put, Iron Man helped establish the template for a superhero origin story that virtually all other films in the comic book genre since have tried to live up to (with relatively minimal success). Simply put, Iron Man doesn’t work without the stellar work from its cast. Of course, Downey, Jr. was born to play Stark and I don’t need to convince anyone who’s seen this movie of that. But I think the supporting cast, from Paltrow as the smart love interest and Howard as the grounding best friend to Bridges’ take on the classic zany villain, elevate the film above many other comic book movies that came before it. On top of just the great character work, Favreau’s direction helps inject a distinctive style befitting the character of Tony Stark. To match his lavish lifestyle and boisterous personality, Favreau and his creative team employ bright colors (most obviously the Mark III suit with an iconic hot-rod blend of red and yellow paint job) to reflect the film’s energetic nature. Furthermore, the inherent rock-star nature of Stark’s character makes Favreau’s reliance on a classic rock soundtrack (including the likes of AC/DC and Black Sabbath) such an inspired choice six years before James Gunn came onto the scene with his pop-rock sound for Guardians of the Galaxy. All of this plays to the film’s smart use of action. It’s clear from the get-go that Favreau knows the kind of superhero that he’s playing with. Due to the metallic form of Stark’s suit of power that inherently looks clunky and moves as such, the action is always kinetic while always feeling grounded in a hyper sense of reality created by a world in which Stark’s arc-reactor technology can even exist. Maybe it gets a bit over the top once Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) battles Stark in his customized “Iron Monger” suit, but this by no means takes away from the superbly entertaining cave breakout in the first act and the reveal of the Mark III (both on the ground and in the air) in the second act. On top of all that, however, Iron Man works best as the start to a billion-dollar movie franchise because it wasn’t trying to be that. With the exception of a handful of lines from S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) and a fun cameo after the credits from S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), the movie never tries to tease a sequel let alone lay the storytelling foundation for other origin movies set in the same universe. This is a lesson that other directors and studios (Zack Snyder and Warner Brothers, perhaps?) should have learned, yet virtually anyone else who’s tried to follow in Marvel and Feige’s footsteps have basically ignored it. All in all, Favreau sought not to kickstart a cinematic universe but simply make a good movie. And this is why Iron Man is so special: it’s a great movie on its own terms, but what it ended up starting elevates it to one of the best comic book movies to this day. The Avengers (2012)
For a summary of the production and release of The Avengers, click here. While I cannot excuse any toxic behavior that Joss Whedon may have exhibited in his career in Hollywood, I cannot deny how important he is in the comic book movie genre. As the writer and director of Marvel Studios’s first ensemble superhero flick, The Avengers, Whedon and his creative team managed to pull off what was impossible back then and remains incredibly difficult now: making a movie that brings a team of superpowered characters together that both pays off their individual stories while also crafting a solid action-adventure story in its own right. Perhaps the most impressive thing about The Avengers is just how much its writing and style lean into the inescapably corny nature of comic books as a storytelling medium. Whedon’s portrayal of these characters—Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner)—invokes snappy, quick-witted banter that manages to endear the audience to each of them. While this would be severely off-putting in virtually any other genre, the hyper-stylized reality that these characters exist in allows us to buy into all of it. Thus, Whedon’s screenplay crafts a specific kind of fictional universe that is unrecognizable in our world but is believable in theirs. In managing the charming and likeable interplay between the heroes, Whedon and his team of filmmakers created the template for how to do a good comic book ensemble flick. Not only are the dynamics between the characters believable (specifically Tony’s friendship with Bruce and his rivalry with Steve), but the way Whedon organically injects drama between them in the second act involving Fury’s secret S.H.I.E.L.D. weapons which leads to some awesome hero-on-hero battles (I particularly enjoy Natasha fighting off a brainwashed Barton and the Hulk facing off against the demigod Thor). Of course, those fights wouldn’t feel earned if not for the tragic death of Coulson and the increasing threat of Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) helping to bring the team back together. Specifically, Fury’s elaborate ruse to persuade Tony and Steve to overcome their differences and launch a last-ditch effort to save New York (and, by extension, Earth) from total destruction. Certainly, one can criticize some elements in The Avengers from the opening scene in which the S.H.I.E.L.D. base is destroyed to the dialogue feeling too prepared and inorganic. But all these criticisms fly in the face of this movie’s breathtakingly awesome third act. Simply put, nothing that arguably falls flat in the first two hours can sour or ruin the incredibly well-shot and well-edited Battle of New York culminating in the iconic “Avengers Circle” moment. Hands down, the six original Avengers united on the ground timed impeccably to Alan Silvestri’s theme song has gone down as one of the best moments in modern cinematic history (if not all time). The Avengers was released ten years ago, but remains up there with The Dark Knight and Logan as the pinnacle of superhero cinema despite being so tonally and stylistically different from those movies. Perhaps only surpassed within Marvel Studios by two of its sequels--Infinity War and Endgame—this film remains the gold standard for comic book ensemble flicks that no other studio or franchise, including Warner Brothers and DC or 20th Century Fox and X-Men, have surpassed. With Iron Man, Marvel Studios proved it could make a good superhero origin story. With The Avengers, the world was given pure movie magic with a fantastic team-up movie. Together, these films forever changed the comic book genre for the better and paved the way for the most successful film franchise of all time with some of the best superhero movies of all time, from Guardians of the Galaxy to Spider-Man: No Way Home. So, where does the genre go from here? Tune in soon to find out. 😊 Which of these pivotal Marvel Studios movies do you love more? What other movies in the MCU do you think are important to the comic book genre overall? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay Acclaimed sci-fi adventure director Robert Zemeckis adapted Carl Sagan’s 1985 novel into the 1997 drama Contact. Starring Jodie Foster, the film grossed over 170 million dollars during its theatrical run and received largely positive reviews from critics at the time despite some negative feedback about the third act. With Zemeckis’s direction and Foster’s performance, it would be understandable for the film to go down in history as one of the best science-fiction flicks ever made.
But I have to ask…why isn’t Contact great? [NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Contact.” You have been warned.] What’s It About Dr. Eleanor “Ellie” Arroway (Jodie Foster), a communications analyst with the SETI program at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, fights back against funding for the program being pulled by the White House science advisor David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt). After securing funding from by private billionaire industrialist S.R. Hadden (John Hurt), Ellie relocates to New Mexico. But, four years later, Drumlin tries to end SETI once again until Ellie discovers a signal repeating a sequence of prime numbers which she believes was sent from the Vega star system approximately 26 light-years away. While Drumlin, leading the National Security Council, readies to shut down SETI, Ellie and her team discover a video of Adolf Hitler’s opening address at the Berlin Summer Olympics in 1936 and they believe this broadcast would have been the first signal strong enough to leave Earth, reach Vega, and be transmitted back. Once word gets out, SETI is tightly secured and progress on its findings are tracked across the world. After Ellie discovers that the signal contains tens of thousands of pages of illegible data, Hadden enters the public sphere to meet with her and help her decode the data which reveals schematics for a transportation machine designed for one person. Many nations of the world come together to fund the construction of the machine in Cape Canaveral, and an international panel is formed to choose who should go in the transport. Despite Ellies being a frontrunner, Christian philosopher Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) highlights her atheism as a point against her. Thus, Drumlin is ultimately chosen as a better representative for humanity. However, during the machine’s test a terrorist destroys the machine and Drumlin is killed as a result. While speaking to Hadden, who is dying of cancer, Ellie learns that his company and the U.S. government built a second prototype of the machine in Japan and that she has been selected to go. Shortly after entering the pod, Ellie travels through a series of wormholes and spots a radio array-like structure at Vega (hinting at signs of an advanced civilization there). She finally lands on a beach that is eerily similar to her childhood drawing of Pensacola, Florida. While on the beach, a figure approaches her and it shows up as her father, but they are actually an alien taking her father’s form. The alien explains that the familiar landscape was created to make first contact with Ellie easier on her, and that her journey is the first step for humanity joining other species in space travel. Ellie travels back through a wormhole, and wakes up on the floor of the machine with members of missions control trying to get her attention. Despite Ellie insisting that she was gone for eighteen hours, the recording devices strapped to her body show only noise. During a Congressional testimony, Ellie insists that the government and the world accept her account of her journey on faith alone (despite the government insisting that the signal was simply a hoax by Hadden). However, in a private conversation not involving Ellie, it is revealed that Ellie’s recording devices did capture 18 hours of static. In the end, Ellie reunites with Joss (with whom she previously had a romantic relationship) and she continues her work in New Mexico. What’s Good About It To be clear, Contact is by no means a bad movie. In fact, it has some of my favorite elements of modern sci-fi cinematic storytelling. Notably, a strong lead performance of a character whose story and personality feel grounded in a narrative about the surreal and (almost) unbelievable. Without question, I think that the strongest aspect of Contact is Jodie Foster’s presence. Her take on Ellie as someone incredibly devoted to her work which also works against her in some ways feels relatable without coming off as too romantic or too gritty. Furthermore, Foster handles her character’s backstory involving her relationship with her father well enough that the third-act reveal works in the sense that Ellie gains some kind of closure with him (even though it’s not really him). But perhaps my favorite part of Foster’s take on Ellie is how she is able to humanize the day-to-day grunt work that scientists do to make the kinds of discoveries that should matter to humanity. In all these respects, the movie does a great job at investing the audience in its protagonist irrespective of the overall narrative that she’s the focus of. Besides the central performance, I think Zemeckis was somewhat ahead of his time in terms of crafting a “hard sci-fi” flick that takes questions like “How would human beings respond to potential contact from extraterrestrial life?” seriously. One of the only other movies that, in my humble opinion, does this well is Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival which came out in 2016 (nearly twenty years after Contact). What both movies do well is believably wrestle with the diverse array of responses that people would have to learning about aliens trying to get in contact with Earth. Furthermore, films like Contact and Arrival seem to ignore the pressures of modern sci-fi flicks to be action-packed (or at least rely on more kinetic, intense scenes to engage an audience). Instead, they represent some of the greatest aspirations of the genre as movies that explore ideas (in this case, the existential crisis that humanity faces when learning that we’re not the only sentient life forms in existence). This alone deserves praise. That being said, does Arrival handle its concept better than Contact? I think it does, which gets to the reasons why I don’t think Contact, despite its strengths, is not a great movie. What’s Holding It Back For me, what holds Contact back from greatness is Zemeckis focusing too much of the film’s two-and-a-half-hour runtime on a subplot about humanity’s “crisis of faith” involving Ellie’s scientific atheism and Palmer’s Christian philosophy. Diametrically opposed to each other ideologically, these two characters are meant to represent the “science/faith” conflict in human society as it relates to the discovery of extraterrestrial life. While I understand why Zemeckis felt it important to include this aspect of the story, I just think it’s not given enough time to breathe and ultimately feels halfhearted and ineffective. Ultimately, this is due to the fact that the final message from the filmmaker and his team about rationality and faith’s relationship to each other feels muddled. There’s no clear answer given as to what humanity should prioritize in the search for knowledge, nor if there even should be a choice. In essence, I think this plot strand should’ve been left as a subtextual backdrop to the core narrative rather than force-fed to the audience. One of the other major problems with Contact comes from how it handles the third-act “twist” of Ellie traveling many light-years into space and meeting the aliens for the first time. Is it emotionally poignant for her to see her father again? Sure, but it’s not a very visually or thematically satisfying approach to showing us what extraterrestrial life could be. Nor do I think that it’s an interesting point to make about how humanity will only see itself in any other life form. At least not for a sci-fi movie like this (I refer people to Arrival if you want to see an exciting yet narratively relevant depiction of alien life). Admittedly, I do find it difficult to sufficiently explain why Contact ultimately doesn’t reach the level of great cinema that it should for me. While it works more often than not, I found myself somewhat underwhelmed by the end. But maybe I’m wrong, and Contact is truly a cinematic masterpiece. I suppose you’ll have to convince me otherwise. 😊 What am I missing about the sci-fi thought piece Contact? Do you think it’s a great movie or do you agree that something’s holding it back from greatness? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay Peter Weir, the acclaimed Australian filmmaker, sits alongside George Miller as one of the pivotal artists who ushered in his country’s New Wave of cinema in the 1970s and 1980s. With films like Picnic at Hanging Rock and Gallipoli, Weir cemented his legacy as an important part of late-20th-century world cinema. And, in my humble opinion, the later films of his career like Dead Poets Society and The Truman Show are actually his best works. However, what is easily his most underrated and underappreciated film is the 1993 drama Fearless starring Jeff Bridges and based on Rafael Yglesias’s novel of the same name.
Why is this movie worth your time? Keep reading to find out. 😊 What’s It About [NOTE: This section contains minor spoilers for “Fearless.” If you’d rather see the film for yourself, skip to the next section.] While in midair on a commercial jet, Max Klein (Jeff Bridges) and the other passengers are suddenly in danger as the plane begins to crash. As the other passengers understandably freak out, Max remains strangely calm (despite admitting his fear of flying before taking off) and is able to help dispel fear amongst his fellow passengers. The crash kills most of the passengers and injures many others, but Max is unharmed and decides to leave the crash site as he feels pestered by the press and FAA investigators trying to question him. In the days following the crash, Max’s family and friends notice his changed behavior and how unaffected he is by the traumatic event. He is also praised on the news by surviving passengers for how he successfully calmed them as the plane was going down. However, Max becomes increasingly distant from his wife and son and becomes convinced that he has forever defeated death itself. He begins spending his spare time consoling another survivor of the crash, Carla Rodrigo (Rosie Perez), who feels guilty about failing to keep her infant child alive during the crash. As lawyers and government agents continue pressuring him to take one side or the other, Max succumbs to the stress and acts on his newfound belief in his immortality by confronting death head-on multiple times. In doing so, Max revels in his fearlessness and must come to recognize the true meaning of a second chance. Why It’s Worth Watching I cannot say this any other way: Fearless very much sits on the shoulders of Jeff Bridges’s commanding performance. As our protagonist, Bridges never once stumbles or falters in showing the incredibly nuances and complexities of Max’s unorthodox way in which he processes the trauma of a near-death experience. This certainly helps anchor the movie’s uncomfortable themes and ideas in a relatable character, and that’s all thanks to Bridges. Without a doubt, his turn in Fearless stands toe to toe with the many other iconic performances of his career in films such as John Carpenter’s Starman and the Coen Brothers’ The Big Lebowski and True Grit. Simply put, if you’re just a Jeff Bridges fan and haven’t seen this movie please trust me when I say that it’s more than worth your time. But, that’s not to say other members of the cast aren’t great, too. Notably, Rosie Perez as fellow crash survivor Carla effectively serves as a foil to Max in terms of how people deal with trauma, grief, and survivor’s guilt differently. Whereas facing death turns Max into a free-wheeling daredevil looking for danger, the loss of her child has turned Carla into an emotional wreck who (understandably and believably) struggles to accept the reality of her loss and the fact that she kept her life when her baby lost theirs. Whenever on screen together, the thematic aspirations of director Peter Weir are on full display as Bridges and Perez play out just how complex processing trauma can truly be. This all adds up to said aspirations. In adapting Yglesias’s novel, Weir crafts an exceptionally mature and intelligent narrative about how a man accepting and embracing his own mortality and the thin line on which it rides helps him (and, therefore, the audience) come to terms with the existential beauty of life in all its comedic and tragic elements. In other words, Fearless makes for an exceptionally well-done examination of the mysteries of the human psyche that is smart and poignant while also entertaining and by no means a waste of your time. Honestly, there isn’t much more I can say if what I’ve already said hasn’t convinced you. Go check out Fearless because it is undoubtedly one of Weir’s best films and a criminally underappreciated drama from recent cinematic memory. Trust me; your time will not be wasted. Have I convinced you to check out Peter Weir’s Fearless? What’s a movie that you feel is underappreciated? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|