Oblivion (2013)

Apocalypse Now and Then

There is something about end of world dramas that prompts writers to bang the pulpit and throw in some religion with the special effects. “Oblivion”, the latest Tom Cruise apocalyptic sci-fi thriller, is no exception. “The Book of Revelation” reigns large in the American psyche; even thetans aren’t immune. For those not familiar with the good book: it has a happy ending. The good guys win the big fight. “Oblivion” begins with the interesting notion that we won the battle; but lost the earth. Cruise is a commander of a ‘mop up‘ operation where the remaining resources of a doomed earth are being salvaged for a new human colony on one of Jupiter’s moons. You see during the raging conflict, started by invaders from outer space, the earth’s moon was destroyed sending a torrent of earthquakes and planet-spanning tidal waves.   Tom and his wife/partner/work colleague oversea a guard station in which they protect the machines that are sucking up the earth’s remaining water from remnants of the invaders who are still lurking in the scarred remnants of the beloved mother planet. Tom actually does the heavy lifting of repairing the protector drones while wifey talks to headquarters. They live in a Philippe Starck apartment/satellite/airport hub (with see-through pool) which hovers over the clouds.  Am I going to fast? It’s all explained in 10 minutes of voiceover replete with Tom looking serious and wifey appearing busy/anxious.  Narration is usually an escape hatch for directors who are overwhelmed with the story. Even though Joseph Kosinski is the author, the film is no exception. The creative team was shooting for Romans 12:21, “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good”. Unfortunately the verse that comes to mind is Ecclesiastes 1:9, “There is nothing new under the sun”.

As a certified non-celebrity I share the fantasy that the superstars of our universe have the world at the palm of their hand. Tom Cruise could hire almost anyone to write and direct his projects. Why would he turn to Joseph Kosinski? Well.... he’s smart.  He is an assistant professor in architecture with a degree from Columbia. His venture into filmmaking began by combining his proficiency in 3D modeling with his passion for graphic novels. His work, “Oblivion”, was published by Radical Comics - a cutting edge multi-media studio. This resume answers puzzling questions about two things that stood out from the tedious familiarity: the helicopter/spaceship and the post-modernist apartment.  These two elements were great and seemed to possess something the story, set-design, script all lacked.... a fresh sense of purpose.  In these small objects Kosinki really showed his stuff.  If only the director could channel the energy he spent on those two things to the script, there might have been something to watch.  Otherwise we are bogged down in an endless stream of sci-fi cliches which seemed to permeate the setting as well as the script. Kubrick’s evil ‘HAL’ makes a grand appearance. The ‘Star Wars” death star is reconfigured. The drones seem to have borrowed their look from R2D2. Since “Return of the Planet of the Apes” it has been de rigueur to include the ruins of the Statue of Liberty amongst earth’s debris.  The story itself has the smell of old Star Trek episodes relating to cloning, eco-peril, the dangers of technology..... Kosinski is, no doubt, brilliant but his creative strength seems limited to visual acuity rather than movie based narrative storytelling. I have not viewed the graphic novel but it is VITAL to understand that, whatever its strengths, film is a different medium. Picture books, no matter how dynamic, are NOT motion pictures.

Perhaps the best film created by architect/designers is the short classic “Powers of Ten” by the legendary couple Charles and Ray Eames. (the film can be seen at ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0 ). This is the text which appears on screen after the title itself: A FILM DEALING WITH THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE AND THE EFFECT OF ADDING ANOTHER ZERO. This awkwardly phrased summary is in stark contrast to the wonderfully concise and clear ‘narrative’ which explains ‘size’ on a grand scale.  Once again it hints at deficiencies in otherwise gifted designers.  Brevity is lacking in the skill-set. Now imagine if these fine minds had come together to tackles grand issues of religion and philosophy.... One can clearly see that this would lead to “Oblivion”. It is vital that ‘special’ people choose the right material. Ironically the formula is counter-intuitive: the academic firepower of the director should be in inverse proportion to the size of the topic at hand in order to yield the grander statement. Kosinki gift lends itself to exquisite work on a small scale rather than worldly themes of universal import. 

The hero of “Oblivion” exhibits a ‘back to the garden’ desire. It’s the same prelapsarian conflict shown in countless sci-fi epics (e.g. “Avatar”, “Star Trek Insurrection”, “Star Wars”).   It would have been interesting if Kosinki had focused exclusively on this theme. The cumbersome complicated ‘conspiracy’ and clumsy set up, inhibited all hope of bringing the characters to life. In this vein perhaps a re-make of “Silent Running is in order. This 1972 space drama focuses on an astronaut who mutinies against his crew in order to save the last remaining plants. It certainly more interesting than the original “Tron” which the suits decided to revise with Kosinki at the helm.  (I couldn’t bring myself to see his version as I was haunted by the boredom of the original.)  “Oblivion” also brought to mind Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine” - a very interesting, much ignored, space thriller. Boyle had the good sense to devise an exquisitely simple premise in order to focus on what we all really want to see: development of the characters within the movie. “Sunshine” boils down to a small crew manning a ship on a salvation mission to fire a device into the waning sun in order to save earth from freezing. The SIMPLE mission becomes intensely dynamic as the struggles of the various individuals are paramount. Contrast this with the convoluted ‘set up’ of “Oblivion”. Despite the careful ten minute voice over the audience is left scrutinizing the storyline IN ADDITION to the drama. The many ‘reveals’ feel more akin to solving medium difficult crossword puzzles rather than character epiphanies.  There is no room for romance or heroics when the focus is on plotline GPS.

“Oblivion” was the NUMBER ONE box office movie this past weekend.  What is a ‘successful’ film? It brought to mind Cary Grant.  Some people felt he should raise the bar on his choice of material citing his starring in a comedy set on a submarine. He pointed out it garnered him a golden globe nomination. In addition it was within the top five top grossing films that year.  History has proven him correct in that adjusted for inflation this was the most financially successful work of his career. (http://cogerson.hubpages.com/hub/Cary-Grant-Box-Office-Grosses-from-his-best-and-worst-movies)  That same year he made another film which earned less money and failed to earn him any awards.  In hindsight it’s hard to imagine anyone considering “North by Northwest” less ‘successful’ than “Operation Petticoat”.... but this is the problem with merely counting figures and citing accolades.  It is something Tom Cruise should consider as he is at a point in his career which is akin to a second US Presidential term: the legacy is the thing. 

Given the last few outings it is time to re-assess Tom’s script selection process. Kudos to him for making a daring political statement in “Lions for Lambs”; although the result artistically fell short.     ( http://thebettertruth.blogspot.com/2007/11/lions-for-lamb-by-bores-heres-joke-for.html ) He also deserves praise for playing against type in  “Magnolia”, “ Tropic Thunder” and “Rock of Ages”. The “Mission Impossible” franchise can pay the rent, so what are we to make of: “Jack Reacher”, “Knight and Day”, “Valkyrie”.... and now "Oblivion"? Once again from my view in 'little people' oblivion it seems self evident that: a. something is wrong and b. it is fixable. Note to Tom: raise bar on material selection. Don’t be fooled by degrees. Don’t hire a cook to do your gardening. Don’t hire an architect to be a writer/director. Why not give Danny Boyle a call. Whether or not these turkeys hit; it doesn’t do much for your standing. Remember Romans 2:6 : (God) “will repay each person according to what they have done.” You’re audiences don’t want to end up on the submarine in “Operation Petticoat”;  they'd rather be flying North on NorthWest Airlines.

Jack Reacher (2012)

Bourne Reacher

Tom Cruise knows more than anyone the limits of being able to control events. “Jack Reacher” comes after a bruising public divorce humiliation which included controversy regarding his religion. The movie’s opening PR campaign was also muted due to the ‘real world’ events in Newtown CT.  The suits in charge felt that a feature that begins with 5 people being randomly executed by a sniper might not play well with an audience still grieving the massacre of first graders by a gun totting madman.  This is a tough break for the producers - in this case Mr. Cruise himself. Nevertheless the show must go on and the film did manage to be the #2 box office gross for the weekend.  I sat with half a dozen elderly people on a Sunday night for the early show.  I was startled by the MPAA rating.   The scene in which the fingerless Russian Gangster (with a German accent) tries to force a man to chew off his own hand might have earned the picture an “R”; but since there was no nudity and little cursing it received the“PG 13” seal of approval.  Perhaps this rating inadvertently led to the dearth of teenagers amongst the crowd;  yes it was Sunday, but during Christmas break.  Or perhaps Mr. Cruise is losing touch with his core fan base. He was nearly 40 when most of them were born. There were posters in the lobby for other old men of the screen: Arnold Schawarzenegger and Sean Penn, have projects due out in early January.  Perhaps the action/adventure genre is some sort of balm for a certain class of older male stars recovering from nasty public divorces.  Arnold’s trailer failed to be promising but it was actually more entertaining than Tom’s 2 hour feature.

For those not in the loop - Jack Reacher is a character in a very popular serialized set of action/adventure novels by Lee Child .  I have not read “One Shot”, from which this film is based, but it sticks to the basic outline as it appears online in Wikipedia:

In an innocent heartland city, five murders with six shots are done by an expert sniper. The police quickly identify and arrest a suspect, and build a slam-dunk case with iron-clad evidence. But the accused man claims he's innocent and says "Get Jack Reacher." Reacher himself sees the news report and turns up in the city. The defense is immensely relieved; but Reacher has come to bury the guy. Shocked by the request of the accused, Reacher sets out to confirm for himself the absolute certainty of the man's guilt, but comes up with more than he bargained for.

Maybe Mr. Cruise should have picked a cleaner plot along the lines of Mr. Child’s “Nothing to Lose”:

Based in Colorado, traveling from the town of Hope to the town of Despair, it soon becomes clear that Reacher is an unwelcome visitor in a town with a lot of secrets to hide. Reacher cannot resist the opportunity to explore these secrets further, especially the peculiar town owner who has employed the majority of the population to work within his recycling factory.

In any event it is clear we are engaged in formulaic entertainment and not Strindberg. Nothing wrong with that, as Mr. Child, whose real name is Mr. Grant, doesn’t pretend.... and who wants to sit through Strindberg in a movie theater (or maybe even a theater theater for that matter).  Wikipedia give us insight into his choice of the name of the ex-military supercop:

While unemployed and midway through writing the first novel with the character as yet unnamed, Lee Child visited his local supermarket with his wife. An elderly lady approached him and asked him to reach an item off a high shelf for her. His wife commented: "Hey if this writing thing doesn't work out, you can be a reacher in a supermarket."

It would be interesting to see a film about the life of Mr. Lee/Grant with some insight into his own need to change his nom de guerre. Mr. Cruise, however, need to focus on the Dough Ray Me. Audiences never warmed to Cruise as anything but a Mission Impossible sort of guy as his most recent “Rock of Ages” has proved (along with “Magnolia”, “Eyes Wide Shut”, “Lions for Lambs”...). Cruise’s middle-brow choice of material matches his choice of director. One might have thought Christopher McQuarrie’s writing credit on Mr. Cruise’s “Valkyrie” would have earned him a spot on a “do not call” list.  But in all deference to Mr. McQuarrie one senses Cruise-control in Reacher. Tom isn’t searching for direction in these self-produced projects as he has figured it all out. Unfortunately the audience is left with a stilted vanity set-piece rather than a solid action/adventure film.

Jack Reacher comes from a tradition of American super-heroes who are suspect by the public at large in their pursuit of a greater good. The fathers of this genre would be George Trendle and Fran Striker who gave us the Lone Ranger and his grand nephew (yes they are literally related) The Green Hornet.  “Why do you wear a mask Lone Ranger?” could easily be transposed to “Why do you live as a unemployed vagrant Mr. Reacher?”. A web poster named Jon Glade in an online response on Yahoo answers examines the Lone Ranger’s need for anonymity (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080515205634AAJrQvl) :

There is an interesting factor in American literature that is called "the American monomyth," which essentially concerns itself with someone who is a member of the masses coming forth to serve the cause of justice (or the needs of society, which may not always be the same thing), righting a bad situation, and then disappearing back into the masses. In other words, America is unique in the fact that it is predisposed to accepting the idea of anonymous avengers.

Whatever one thinks of Tom’s religion it is not hard to understand his ‘spirtual’ connection a loner who is selflessly battling the forces of evil despite popular opinion. To quote Tom’s infamous Scientology video in which he describes his devotion to the creed: “Being a Scientologist when you drive past an accident it’s not like anyone else. As you drive past, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you’re the only one that can really help” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0   section 1:00-1:16) .  And how does public respond? The answer is online at: www.TomCruiseIsNuts.com  . Tom and Jack have the weight of the world on their shoulders and no one really appreciates their struggle. Clumsy exposition gives us the bedrock of Jack’s lonely battle - he is a much decorated army hero who spent a career as a military policeman.  He has had run ins with the brass who demoted him only to have him rise to a high rank again.  Suddenly, without explanation, he returns to the US only to live an invisible life and collect cash from military a pension at various Western Union locations. As the story unfolds Tom/Jack reveals what makes him tick. In a monologue while looking out at a busy office building filled with workers: (am paraphrasing) ”I spent 25 years listening to my government tell me I was fighting for freedom... look at all those people slaving away out there;  overwhelmed by debt and worry... trying to make ends meet.... are they free? they just wish they could live like me.” Perhaps Tom/Jack overestimates the desire of the general public to live a life of violence and insecurity. Certainly Tom seems unable to distinguish his adolescent fantasies of a middle aged multi-millionaire movie star from the challenges facing working people.  The bottom line is that Jack/Tom has a personal moral code of right and wrong and his life will be dedicated to HIS truth. 

The most obvious parallel would be to the Bourne action/adventure series, featuring a disillusioned secret agent. Doug Liman’s films, unlike Tom’s Reacher, were compelling and fun. Matt Damon’s Bourne is a trusting good soldier who embarks on a journey of discovery where he, and the audience, experience the heartbreaking realization that his beloved country has betrayed him. Jack Reacher is merely giving speeches.  We are told, in painfully drawn narration, what he is like, what he has done.... we see  nothing of his journey of disaffection. Tom/Jack is a crack investigator, marksman, guerrilla fighter, memorizer of data... but his motives are drawn with the subtlety of a good guy’s white hat.   There is nothing behind his anger except the cold heroic bather. The appalling glacially paced script combined with an endless supply of comic book heavies headed by the aforementioned fingerless German/Russian, makes the experience akin to watching the one movie available on an airplane during heavy turbulence.  (Incidentally the evil bad guy is played by an actual German - the famed director Werner Herzog - who seems to be proving that behind every great european auteur is a burning desire to be a Hollywood Star... or at least stand near one on the big screen....e.g. Francois Truffaut in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” ).  It was nice to know that Robert Duvall can still be the eternal army cracker; although he has mellowed since “Apocalypse Now”.  The ingenue Rosamund Pike was forced to try and make us believe she found a shirtless Tom Cruise utterly irresistible.  Tom is hot... for a 50 year old guy. The idea that her character would have been drooling challenges credulity and speaks to the general disposition of people on the set refusing to tell Tom the emperor should put his shirt back on.  The stunt and fight scene shortcomings are too numerous to mention and one suspect’s Cruise’s megalomania at work - not one crew member had the courage to say, to borrow the pithy phrasing of the protagonist: “Tom this shit ain’t workin’”.  Actually that’s unfair, Reacher doesn’t seem to have the imagination to curse or the producers want to preserve the PG 13 rating - it would be more like - “Fight scenes... (beat, heavy breath) not workin’”.  This extends to the whole enterprise. In fact “Tom you’re old” might be added.

Unfortunately for future audiences more Reacher tombs are headed for the big screen. But we can all wish good things in the new year and maybe Tom will option the rights and decide to hand off the lead.  The bottom line is if you’re a omnipotent superstar you can create your own world. The challenge of making a great film about someone who lives in their own world is to work with people who collaboratively handle various aspects of the project.  Mr. Cruise has a reputation of being a doggedly hard worker and consummate professional. Unfortunately what is required is a steely determined artistic vision; which in turn requires trusting powerful department heads to execute a plan.  It is hard to imagine seasoned professionals screening rushes and not commenting on the obvious flaws. More likely the production crew stepped back and nodded:“hey Tom it’s your show... you’re in-charge”.  One can imagine Tom gleefully doing donuts in the souped up muscle cars; executing complicated maneuvers well into the wee hours of the morning until things were “perfect”.  Everyone must have known the scenes would be tedious.... but who wants to tell the boss... especially since he’s a decent guy who’s working so damn hard. In the end the key to total control is knowing who to trust. Judging by this feature Mr. Cruise lives in a very lonely world.... someone needs to tell him. Ironically Jack Reacher would have... but he wasn’t on set.