Spielberg: Twilight Zone: The Movie: “Kick the Can”
First, I’d like to thank Mr. Spielberg for giving the opportunity to create a journal entry that contains three colons in thesubject heading.
Steven Spielberg’s artistic development, in his first decade on movie screens, started softly with The Sugarland Express, exploded in the megaton blast of Jaws, soared to incredible heights with Close Encounters, stumbled momentarily with 1941, then finished up with an incredible one-two-three punch of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Poltergeist and E.T. That decade alone would have been enough career for just about anyone, but us Spielberg watchers knew that the best was yet to come. I remember seeing E.T. for the third or fourth time and thinking “Oh my God, when this guy is 50 years old he’s going to be awesome.” And I’m pleased to report that this came to pass.
Spielberg’s first decade of phenomenal artistic development climaxed with a stunning culmination of style and intent — the “Spielberg style” came to define commercial American moviemaking in the next decade and beyond. In his second decade, Spielberg stretched boundaries, investigated new areas of development, took some daring chances and made great strides as a storyteller.
But first he directed “Kick the Can,” his contribution to the omnibus Twilight Zone: The Movie.
WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT? The problem with “Kick the Can,” unsurprisingly, begins here. Who is the protagonist of this short? The plot is: Kindly old Mr. Bloom comes to an old folks home and Teaches Folks A Lesson. The protagonists of a story like this would most effectively be the ensemble of elderly folks who are confronted with Mr. Bloom. What to make of the mysterious outsider who sees things differently from the status quo, who uses magic and wry irony to show us the error of our ways?
But none of the ensemble of “Kick the Can” is developed in any kind of interesting way. Each character is a stereotype for quick reading — the kvetching Jew, the faded romantic, the bitter loner, et cetera. They are thoroughly uninteresting, and Spielberg shoots them with unflattering lenses and lighting, turning them into cartoon characters. The only character Spielberg seems to be interested in is Mr. Bloom, who arrives with a twinkle in his eye and mischief up his sleeve. We are on the outside of the ensemble, on the side of the magician, looking down at the status quo, giggling with giddy joy at the mischievous lesson we’re about to teach the poor benighted folks who don’t know any better.
And so Bloom becomes the protagonist of “Kick the Can.” This is like making Peter Pan the protagonist of Peter Pan (which Spielberg would, of course, eventually figure out a way to do). More to the point, it’s like making E.T. the protagonist of E.T.
Why is this a bad thing? Dramatically, it instantly evaporates a great deal of dramatic tension. We know Mr. Bloom is magic and we can see that the ensemble is a bunch of easily-manipulated sheep, so as an audience all we can do is sit and wait for the magic to happen. Mr. Bloom comes to the old folks home, creates a desire in the minds of the ensemble, then caters to that desire, then points out with leaden earnestness the futility of the desire. Essentially, he comes to the old folks home, says “You know what you people need? You need to be tricked.” And the ensemble says “Say, you know? We do need to be tricked. Trick us.” And so Mr. Bloom tricks them and says “Now look at how foolish you look, falling for my trick. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?” The intent is to instill a warm glow of magic, but the result is curdled and smug, demonstrating not the power of magic but the power of manipulation.
And so it occurs to me that, just as E.T. symbolizes Spielberg’s artistic talent, Bloom is a stand-in for Spielberg himself. Looked at this way, “Kick the Can” makes perfect sense — Spielberg sees himself as a magic wanderer, a trickster who arrives on a scene where everyone’s sitting around staring at each other and masterfully manipulates the crowd into a state of wonder and awe, makes them realize some profound truth or other, then moves on to the next unsuspecting bunch of rubes. It’s a movie very pleased with itself, which I suppose makes it a good adaptation of Rod Serling, who similarly had a dim view of society (and his audience) as children in need of a lesson.
Spielberg: Poltergeist
(For those interested in my earlier thoughts on Poltergeist, I direct you here.)
WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT? Diane Freeling is a middle-class housewife and mother of three. Like many middle-class mothers, she is content to merely get through the day, negotiating the various comedies and headaches of middle-class American existence — the fighting kids, the snotty neighbors, the promiscuous teenager.
There is, of course, an underlying fear to her life, the same fear that lies beneath just about everyone’s life — the fear of death. Diane does not feel death at her elbow, but she knows it’s out there waiting somewhere, and while she may or may not be content with that knowledge, she very much wants to keep it from her children. This desire first expresses itself as Diane trying to soften the blow of the death of her preschooler’s pet bird, but the stakes for Diane will eventually rise to the point where she will, literally, enter the gates of Hell in order to save her child from death.
You can’t choose between life and death when we’re dealing with what is in between