no comment

Found these two headlines, literally, right next to each other online at the New York Times:

“Stiller Eyes Sequel”

and

“Smithsonian Director Resigns”

hitcounter

He’s a demon and he’s gonna be chasing after someone.




hitcounter


Speed Racer
update: Sam (7) and Kit (5) made a beeline for their Speed Racer toys this morning and argued over who would get to play with the “big” Mach 5 (we own two), so I know this movie is no flash-in-the-pan. (I doubt they could even identify their Spiderwick Chronicles toys at this point).

In my never-ending quest to provide Hollywood with reliable, first-hand, home-grown responses from real moviegoers, I quizzed both Sam and Kit on their response to the movie.

DAD: So you liked Speed Racer?
SAM (zooming a Hot Wheels-sized Mach 5 along the top of a coffee table): I loved it. It was great.
DAD: What was your favorite part?
SAM: The racing. And the fight in the ice mountains. (Sam then goes on to recount a significant portion of said fight.) And a lot of it was funny, but no one in the theater was laughing.
DAD: Well, there weren’t very many people in the theater.
SAM: Yeah, but it was funny and I felt weird laughing when nobody else was.
DAD: Like what was funny?
SAM: (goes on to recount, in detail, some choice bits of anime-inspired physical comedy.)
DAD: What did you like about the races?
SAM: They were really fast, and all kinds of cool stuff happens in them. You know what it reminded me of? The pod race. (I swear I did not coach him in this discussion.) And the fight over Coruscant [in Episode III], with all the stuff happening all over the place.
DAD: Wow, it sounds like you really liked this movie. Would you want to go see it again?
SAM: Well, I loved it, but I wouldn’t want to have to sit and go through the whole movie again, just to see the parts I liked.

______

DAD: Kit, did you like that movie yesterday?
KIT: (suspiciously) Uh huh —
DAD: What was your favorite part?
KIT: (without hesitation) The racing.
DAD: Who was your favorite character?
KIT: (with a tinge of swoon) Speed.
DAD: You liked Speed?
KIT: Yeah.
DAD: Oh.
KIT: What?
DAD: I thought you liked Racer X.
KIT: Why did you think that?
DAD: I thought Racer X was cool, I thought you thought so too.
(pause)
KIT: And I liked the — what was his name?
DAD: Spritle?
KIT: (laughing at the memory of Spritle’s antics) Yeah! And Chim-chim. They’re funny. (She goes on to recount a humorous exchange between Speed and Spritle.)
DAD: What did you think of Trixie?
KIT: Who was Trixie?
DAD: She was the girl, who flew in the helicopter, had the short black hair —
KIT: Yeah, I liked her. Oh, and Speed’s sister.
DAD: Speed’s — sister?
KIT: Yeah.
DAD: Speed — doesn’t — have — a sister.
KIT: No, the one with the short black hair. Who wore the pink.
DAD: That’s Trixie. That’s not Speed’s sister, that’s his girlfriend.
KIT: His what?
DAD: That’s his girlfriend.
KIT: (as though teaching a very small child) She’s over at his house
DAD: Well, yeah, she’s his girlfriend, she comes over to his house, she can do that. She has to come over to help build the Mach 5. (Dad’s head is swimming with all the love scenes and quasi-love-scenes between Speed and Trixie, and wondering what Kit thought was going on in them.) I like Trixie because she’s a gearhead.
KIT: What’s a gearhead?
DAD: A gearhead is someone who likes to take things apart and put them back together and build things like cars and helicopters and stuff. (Strange that this summer has, so far, offered us two gearhead movies, Iron Man and Speed Racer, within three weeks.)

It makes total sense to me that both children liked the racing, and who knows, perhaps the races even made narrative sense to them and carried their dramatic weight. Kit, predictably, responded to the characters and the humor, Sam, just as predictably, responded to the fights and the slapstick. Neither professed any interest in the racing marginalia or the corporate intrigue.

(On the way to the movie, we passed by a billboard for Prince Caspian. “You guys want to see Prince Caspian?” I asked. “Yes!” chirped Kit, but Sam exclaimed “No!” as though I had asked him if he wanted snakes in his bed.)

He’s jamming down the pedal like he’s never coming back.

Took my son Sam (7), daughter Kit (5) and Guest Child X to see Speed Racer this afternoon.

The headline: Matthew Fox crushes as Racer X.hitcounter The Editor (from yesterday’s post) is correct — he is by far the most interesting character in the Speed Racer universe, and Fox’s performance perfectly captures him. FORGET EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT PORTRAYALS OF MYSTERIOUS ANIME RACECAR DRIVERS.

Sam and Guest Child X loved it — they raced down to the front row of the (empty) theater and danced during the end credits. Kit also said she loved it, but she actually came down with a fever during the movie, a medical event unrelated to anything on screen, and during the end credits asked repeatedly “can we go now?”

Speed Racer seems to have audiences sharply divided — at least the audiences who have sought it out. The majority seem to find it a headache-inducing nightmare, but there is a vocal minority who find it a generation-defining experience, an either you-get-it-or-you-don’t line in the day-glo orange sand. I find myself somewhere in the middle — I think it’s a hugely sophisticated piece of cinematic art, but I would also say that it has some significant problems — problems that apparently did not register with Sam, who, upon coming home from the movie, swept his Star Wars toys aside and got out his long-ignored box of little racecars (including a tiny Mach 5 from his younger, more innocent days) and staged a tiny cross-country rally in our TV room, complete with multiple environments and death-defying jumps.

The universe of the movie, the production design, the crazy logic of the sets, the music, the editing, the colors, the tone of the performances, I think all that is quite impressive, but it didn’t seem particularly revolutionary or generation-defining to me. I had my “Oh-my-God-what-we-can-do-with-computers” moment while watching Sin City, so Speed Racer didn’t awe me in that way. If anything, the look of Speed Racer kept reminding me of The Phantom Menace — another movie where, no matter what else you want to say about it, looks astonishing — and then I found out at the end that they have the same director of photography. As in The Phantom Menace, there’s always something extraordinary happening on screen, but not always with the dramatic impact intended. It may be my age showing, but the racing sequences in Speed Racer strike me very much like the pod race in The Phantom Menace — both are hugely sophisticated in their design and execution, but lack dramatic momentum. They are wild and weird and loco and in many ways stunning in their originality, but I found myself wanting to care more.

I had to leave the theater four times during the movie to fetch popcorn and drinks and to escort children to the restroom, so I won’t pretend to present a coherent analysis of the movie at this time. One thing I did notice, however, was a narrative that was both willfully simplistic and, to my ear, unnecessarily complicated. The world is both utterly, deliriously cartoonish and then surprisingly hard-headed and realistic (another reason it kept reminding me of The Phantom Menace). The gonzo racing sequences and slapstick kiddie antics will pause for long, involved discussions of contracts and sponsorships and automotive-part promotions and stock deals and corporate intrigue. The odd thing is, I kind of remember this kind of thing from the show as well, watching them when my kids were 4 and 3 and wondering then, too, if the stories were too sophisticated for them to understand.

(UPDATE: an hour’s worth of research has confirmed my suspicions: the narrative of Speed Racer is remarkably true to its roots — for good and bad.  Auto-part production, corporate intrigue and shady deals are endemic to the material — you just never remember any of that from when you’re a kid.  And it’s not presented with the exhaustive detail it’s given in the feature.)

On the other hand, I don’t really care if a story is too sophisticated for my kids, only if it’s too boring. My question is, if you live in a universe where racetracks turn upside down and run through ice caves, where characters live with chimpanzees, anonymous racers scour the roads dealing with gangsters, racecars fly and flip and sprout circular saws and villainous racecars launch beehives at their competitors, why make the bad guy plot so plausible and complex? I sat through Act II of Speed Racer watching through my charges’ eyes, trying to find the kernel of the action that would explain things on a level they could understand. Finally the movie got to it — The bad guy wants to win so badly that he cheats.  That’s the bad-guy plot in one sentence, but the movie says it in a dozen scenes of back-room dealings, explanations of racing administration history and under-the-table negotiations. It was a rare instance where I wanted the movie to be a little simpler.

Apropos of nothing

Came across this photo yesterday. It is a picture of my mother when she was a little girl, her father, and Robert Wadlow, who is generally considered the tallest man who ever lived. And who apparently also lived near my mother when she was a little girl.

My mother is on the right. Wadlow is in glasses.

hitcounter

Spielberg: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade part 2

hitcounter
Stills swiped from here.hitcounter

Yesterday we left Indy and his father midway through Act II, at the crossroads of their relationship, and the crossroads of the narrative. Indy’s got his father, but he still hasn’t achieved his goal — communication with his father. The chase to the crossroads, while light by Indiana Jones standards, has some lovely character beats as Indy grins about the bad guy’s he’s foiled and his father looks bored and winds his watch. (Indy “jousts” with one of the bad guys, underscoring the “Indy as modern-day knight” metaphor that will become important later.) And honestly, if you can’t engage with your sons during a motorcycle chase with a gaggle of Nazi stooges, it’s probably never going to happen. They argue at the crossroads, with Indy’s father going so far as to slap him for “blasphemy” when he uses the lord’s name in vain.

Speaking of using the lord’s name in vain, Indy and his father next hop over to Berlin, where Indy disguises himself and attends a Nazi book-burning rally. In one of my favorite Indiana Jones moments, he gets his father’s diary from Elsa only to run into Adolf Hitler, who obligingly autographs the diary and hands it back. (This is a moment that required a little explanation to my son, who barely even remembers that the Justice League, not too long ago, had to thaw out a frozen Adolf Hitler in order to re-jigger an altered time-line of a supervillain-influenced World War II.)

Indy and his father manage to get aboard a zeppelin out of Germany, headed I suppose for Hatay, where the grail is apparently hidden. They are pursued by third villain Vogel but Indy disposes of him without too much trouble.

Indy and his father, safe for a moment, have a moment to talk. Indy is now within striking distance of his goal, but finds, once the opportunity presents itself, he cannot speak. First he’s too angry, then he’s too intimidated — communication seems to be beyond him and he says he can’t think of anything to talk about. Dad, relieved to have the onus of communication lifted, cheerfully invites Indy to “get down to work” with him on recovering the grail.

And it’s not a very deep insight, but here in this scene is the core of the movie — Indy wants to communicate with his father, and his father, through his disinterest in communication, hits on a simple truth. Men, not just fathers and sons, communicate best through shared action. Longtime reader of this journal “The Editor” wondered yesterday if Spielberg’s fan-base is largely male because of Spielberg’s Oedipal issues, and while there is certainly truth to that, I think it’s more that Spielberg understands that men tend to show their affection most purely through action, not through words. When a father wants to show he loves his son, he plays catch with him, or builds a model with him, or goes camping with him. When men want to show they love each other, they play basketball or watch the game — or make a movie. Indy doesn’t know it at the moment, but his father’s avoidance of communication and insistence upon action will lead to a deeper, more profound communication than a simple conversation would.

Anyway, the zeppelin turns around, Indy and his father escape via handy biplane (don’t try this at home) and beat the bad guys in a comic aerial shootout, which deposits them, apparently, in the country of Hatay (which I just found out is a real place — live and learn).

ACT III (1:22:00-2:05:00)

Donovan, having collected Vogel, Elsa and Marcus, arrives in Hatay and bribes the local Grand Poobah into providing soldiers and military hardware for the journey to the Canyon of the Crescent Moon. I wonder what they have told the Grand Poobah — “hey, there is a completely uninteresting thing we’d like to go and fetch out of one of your local ancient wonders — is that okay with you?” Apparently the locals either don’t know about the Canyon of the Crescent Moon (funny that the Holy Grail would be secreted in a location with an obviously Islam-inspired name) or they don’t care to venture there — what with the decapitating-machines and whatnot inside.

Donovan ventures out into the desert with his team, and, in an inversion of a similar beat in Raiders, is besieged in a canyon by Frank Zappa and his team of grail-protecting zealots. No sooner is this shootout over than Indy swoops down with his team to get Marcus, setting into motion the biggest action set-piece of Last Crusade, the typically fluid, typically rousing, typically expert tank battle. This tank battle is wonderful stuff: inventive, witty, exhaustive in its exploration of possibilities. It’s as though Spielberg and his team of thinkers sat down and made a list of every possible physical gag that could occur in, on and around a moving tank — and then figured out a way to include them all, in order of escalating thrills, ending with a Duel-like plunge off a cliff, which kills Vogel.

On the other hand, the tank battle is very well done, but it’s nothing compared to, say, the last half-hour of Temple of Doom, with its triple-play fist-fight, minecar-chase, suspension-bridge climax, or Raiders‘ relentless Well-of-Souls, fight-at-the-airstrip, truck-chase roundelay. The action beats in Last Crusade, while not exactly perfunctory, are easier, breezier and less momentous than those of the other movies. Obviously a decision was made, early on in production, to make Last Crusade more of a comedy, a buddy comedy even. A buddy comedy being, of course, a variation on a romantic comedy. And so we see that Last Crusade has an almost-classic romantic comedy plot: boy finds father, boy loses father, boy gets father back. And vice versa — father also loses and finds boy — the tank battle ends with Dad thinking Indy dead and regretting not talking to him. At which point Indy is revealed to not be dead after all, at which point Dad forgets all about talking and insists on pressing on — “We’re so near the end!” he beams.

And so all the principles gather in the Canyon of the Crescent Moon (which is, of course, Petra, a place cool enough in its own right) to go after the grail. And the screenwriter says “but I thought the protagonist wants to talk to his father, not go after the grail, how is the protagonist supposed to care about getting the object that he’s spent the whole movie saying he’s not interested in?” At which point Donovan obligingly shoots Dad, pressing the issue rather expertly I thought.

And so Donovan’s action (shooting Dad) becomes more powerful than any words of threat, and Dad’s lifelong quest for the grail becomes the son’s quest, as it is the only way for Indy to achieve his larger goal of communication with his father. To accentuate this, Indy and his father, through the action of fulfilling the “tests” inside the tomb, communicate on an almost Elliott-and-E.T. level of awareness. Father and son might spend their whole lives gabbing about this or that archaeological anecdote, but through action they find their real communion. Dad has what he is good at (academic details and stern discipline), son has what he is good at (problem-solving and improvisation) and, between the two of them, they get to the Maguffin (actually the second Maguffin, the diary is the first) and, through it, achieve the protagonist’s goal. Whew! That’s a lot to load onto the last set-piece of a movie, and one of the high marks in Last Crusade‘s favor is how it wears all this lightly and with easy grace.

After all the dust has settled, Indy has what he wants — communication with his father.  One could even say that Indy hasfound communion with his father by literally following in his footsteps — including bedding the same woman.  In any case, in the end, his father has given up his quest for the grail (“Indy — let it go”) and found his son.  “Illumination” is what he says he has found, which echoes a line from the prelude, where the father is heard asking for “illumination” from the bible to help him find the grail.  The illumination he finds, I suppose, comes from the realization that the grail is nice, providing eternal life and all, but his son is the true light of his life.  Which is too corny to say that way, which is why the screenwriter shortens and encodes it in the single word.

Of course, what neither Indy, nor his father, nor Marcus, nor Elsa, nor Donovan, nor Hitler knows is that the Holy Grail isn’t “the cup of Christ,” it’s Audrey Tatou. And, if you really want to press me on it, I don’t find the grail mythology as presented in Last Crusade especially compelling or even interesting — the knights and the secret tomb and the multiple magical properties and the multiple-choice grail challenge. But that’s okay — the movie isn’t really about the Holy Grail, which is as it should be — it’s a bad idea to make a movie about an object or an idea, no matter how fascinating the object or idea might be. That goes for sharks, flying saucers, dinosaurs, Nazis, airplanes, invaders from Mars, ghosts, psychic powers, robots or the invasion of Normandy. Stories are about people — if the “personal” story isn’t there, no one’s going to care about all the “cool stuff” you present — although Spielberg knows how to present cool stuff better than just about anybody. That, in the end, is, I think, why the Indiana Jones movies just seem better than other action-adventure movies — the warmth of the character, even if he never actually “learns” anything, presents a human story each time, not just a series of set-pieces.

Spielberg: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade part 1

WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT? Indiana Jones, although still interested in historic artifacts, is here interested in a goal less tangible and harder to gain than a Peruvian idol or Sankara Stone — communication with his father.

The structure of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is quite a bit more conventional than the structures of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom — those movies had four acts of roughly equal length, with three chapters in each act, for a total of twelve chapters. I find Last Crusade to be more conventionally structured, a straight-ahead three-act narrative with a prelude.

My soul is prepared — how's yours?

there is no particular point to this entry

Some photos I took of Sam’s Star Wars toy collection.

hitcounter

The Wonder Unicorn

Faced with headlines like this, the world is ready, I believe, for a story about a unicorn, and a little girl, and a hat, and a circus.

Dad is not the only storyteller in the Alcott family. This is by Kit (5). As difficult as it is for me to wrap my mind around the idea that my daughter, when, given the chance, thinks up stories about unicorns, little girls, and hats, and circuses, I cannot argue with the sweep and punch of the results.

Hollywood studio executives will no doubt note Kit’s grasp of the surprise twist ending. Not content with one, she here supplies us with two.  Or three.  Take that, M. Night Shyamalan!

UPDATE: Fox has just called regarding the rights to The Wonder Unicorn.  They’re thinking of Queen Latifah as a streetwise, sassy unicorn and Evan Rachel Wood as the little girl.

 hitcounter

some thoughts on why I’m doing this at all

scooterjockey   writes:

“I understand this is a blog about the story of films – but for some reason with Spielberg movies, the movie can’t be judged on story alone. Obviously visuals are the cornerstone to every film (otherwise, we’d be satisfied with simply reading the stories) and few can match the perfection that Spielberg brings visually.”

The main body of Mr. Jockey’s comment is about the importance of John Williams’ music in Spielberg’s movies, but his preamble set off a chain of reasoning in my head that became too complicated to be confined to the comments margin.

There is no mysterious “some reason” that Spielberg movies can’t be judged on story alone. No movie can be judged by story alone. A screenplay is, as they like to say in story meetings, only a blueprint. The “meaning” of the movie may be consonant with the blueprint or it may comment on it, or contradict it. Visuals can compress, expand, redact, re-arrange, re-value, devalue and undermine whatever is in the script. The screenwriter is helpless before the primacy of the visual, and the smart screenwriter finds a director who more or less shares his vision and lets him do the job of bringing the screenplay to visual life — which involves changing things. As John Logan said about writing The Aviator (I paraphrase) “I learned that a crease in Leonardo DiCaprio’s brow says more than a page of description.”

Movies are, of course, about the visual. Spielberg’s movies, with their stunning images and masterfully choreographed action, tend to be more about the visual than others. (The reader will note that he is not putting his hand to his ear in the above photograph.) The visual fluency of Spielberg’s movies is so abundant and seductive that I can easily get caught up in a compelling camera move, a bit of editing, a spectacular effort of production design, a dazzling piece of choreography, and lose track of the blueprint entirely. The purpose of this series is to track the protagonists of Spielberg’s movies through the narratives of their respective movies, relying as much as possible on their simple actions, that is, “what they do” as opposed to “how they are shot” or “what is the cumulative impact.”

(Or, for that matter, “how is the music.” And let me just say right now that I’m sick and tired of people who are sick and tired of John Williams. What position for a composer to be in — his talent and sensibility are so well-matched to his director that people take him as a given and pretend to disdain him — “Ho hum, another score by John Williams.” Where would Spielberg be without Williams? More to the point, where does Spielberg end and Williams begin? That’s how closely married their sensibilities are, you can’t imagine Spielberg’s movies without Williams’s music and you can’t hear Williams’s music without seeing the visuals they accompany.)

(One thing I’ve learned, for instance: the “three-act narrative” has become such a rule of Hollywood development that anything else is looked upon with suspicion or dread, yet few of Spielberg’s movies have a three-act structure. His most popular movies have four, and some even have five.)

The purpose, for me, of this Spielberg series is specifically to examine the blueprints of his movies and figure out how they’re designed and built — before the dazzling visuals come into play. Since the dawn of my moviegoing days I’ve known that Spielberg’s movies work, now I want to know why they work.

hitcounter

Spielberg: Empire of the Sun

WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT? Jim Graham is a boy living a pampered, sheltered life in a rather unusual circumstance — he is the son of well-to-do Britons in the suburbs of Shanghai in the 1930s. When the Japanese invade Shanghai in 1941, he is separated from his wealth, his privilege, his nationality, and most important, his family. His identity stripped away and his sense of self shattered, Jim looks desperately for an authority figure who will take the place of his family — in short, something to believe in, a leader to follow.

The structure of Empire of the Sun goes something like this:


ACT I (0:00-27:00)
We see Jim in his environment, among the wealthy, transplanted Britons and their strange, insulated lifestyle. We know that their days are numbered, and if we don’t, Spielberg lets us know by sending Jim to a Christmas costume party where one grownup comes as Marie Antoinette and another comes as Death.

Jim, we see, like Donna Stratton in 1941, has a fetish for warplanes — he admires their power. We will come to find that Jim admires power for its own sake — part of Jim’s story how he learns to survive, like the ancient Italian whoremonger in Catch-22, by surrendering to whoever seems to be in power at any given time. Aircraft, for Jim, are always a symbol of a greater power — this he shares, of course, with Roy Neary in Close Encounters.

At the close of Act I, in Spielberg’s most sophisticated crowd-mayhem setpiece yet, Shanghai is invaded by the Japanese and Jim is separated from his parents and his lifestyle.

ACT II (27:00-1:02:00) This multi-part, complicated act involves Jim’s journey from wealthy British expat to prisoner of war. Separated from his parents, he returns home, assuming they will meet him there. Instead of finding his parents, he finds his servants looting the place. When he challenges them he receives a slap in the face. He stays in his house until he runs out of food, then ventures into the city as the Japanese occupation takes hold. He tries to surrender to the Japanese army, who laugh at him. He is chased through the streets by a teenage orphan boy, who is unnamed but who isexactly the right age to be a grown-up Short Round from Temple of Doom.

(Most of the direction in Empire of the Sun is fresh, daring and a new page for Spielberg, although he does occasionally overstate a beat or rely on his fluent shooting skills to turn an action beat into a visual gag. In Act I, Jim doesn’t just have one or two plane hanging from his bedroom ceiling, his room is festooned with model planes, and they all move in the breeze. In the brilliant Shanghai sequences, when Jim is chased by Short Round, Spielberg cannot resist an off-tone do-si-do on a crowded street of rickshaws. And when Jim walks past the local movie theater, they are, of course, showing Gone With The Wind.)

Jim tries to find other Brits, is refused by the Japanese and is threatened by the locals. He is eventually found by Frank and Basie, a couple of American black-marketeers. He is, at first, seen as valuable for sale or trade, and Jim embraces his status as commodity in this new reality as eagerly as he embraced his status as rich-kid. Jim, in his desperate search for authority, has an unerring eye for figuring out who is in charge. If heartless capitalism is in charge, well then, he’ll be a happy commodity and strive to be a worthy commodity.

The locals don’t want to buy Jim as a slave, and Basie is about to cut Jim loose when Jim, facing another loss of an authority figure, quickly sells out his birthright, advising Basie to loot his home in the suburbs. His home, in his absence, has been taken over by the Japanese and he, Basie and Frank are taken prisoner.

Jim is relocated to an internment camp, where he meets the Brits he knew in the suburbs now reduced to refugees. They are shattered, but Jim, taking his cues from wily capitalist Basie, learns how to live in this environment. When it comes time to be transferred to a larger camp, Basie is ready to give up Jim in a flat second, and Jim has to figure out a new way to scam a ride.

And somewhere in this part of the movie I jotted down in my notes “fiercely committed performance from Christian Bale.” Indeed, you watch Bale’s performance in this movie and you have no trouble imagining the man who will eventually go on to do American Psycho, The Machinist and Batman Begins.

ACT III (1:07:00-1:37:00) At the Soochow Internment Camp, adjoining a Japanese airfield, we see Jim mastering the system, playing every conceivable angle to ensure his survival. He steals, trades, gambles and gets by on pluck and charisma. This, in his mind, makes him an American. The Brits we focus on, a doctor and Mr. and Mrs. Victor, the despairing couple with whom Jim shares a room, are too wrapped up in their cultural identity to bend much with their new circumstances. They refuse to bow to their Japanese captors and wilt under the humiliation of their reduced lives. The Americans, meanwhile, are full of energy and vigor, brimming with optimism and plans.

Meanwhile, across the street, so to speak, Jim is lured by the lives of the Japanese pilots, who might be flying off to their deaths, but at least they are committed to what they see as greater power, a fate Jim sees as ideal.

Jim also witnesses Mr. and Mrs. Victor making love, an early Spielberg stab at shooting an adult, realistic sex scene.

At the climax of the act, Jim negotiates a supposed minefield to capture a pheasant for Basie. The pheasant goes uncaptured and Jim survives the errand thanks to a fellow plane-crazy adolescent from the Japanese airfield, but Jim’s skill in negotiating minefields is already well established by this point in the narrative. For his survival skills and wiliness, Jim is granted admittance into the American barracks.

ACT IV (1:37:00-1:57:00) No sooner does Jim gain admittance into the American barracks than his father-figure Basie falls from grace. Caught stealing the camp commandant’s soap (that Jim stole for him), Basie is beaten and hospitalized, his possessions stolen by his fellow Americans — a clear argument against the limits of capitalism. When you’re on top, everything is great, but when your employees sense your weakness they will become your competitors and rip you off without a second thought.

Against this, the Kamikazes training next door seem more honorable and enticing than ever to young Jim. His teen pal from the airfield is getting ready to go on a bombing run when the American Air Force shows up, and Jim’s allegiance instantly shifts again to the force with the superior air power. He’s ready to embrace the attacking airplanes even if it means getting blown up. At the height of the American bomb run, the British doctor snaps him out of his delirium and Jim suddenly realizes that he doesn’t remember what his parents look like — his search for an authority has erased from his mind the most basic authority of all.

ACT V (1:57:00-2:25:00) The war over, the again-homeless Jim heads back the British barracks and the sad, tired Victors. His experiences have left him utterly confused about what is important — family, country, ideals, home? (It’s telling that Jim, born in Shanghai, has never seen the Britain everyone tells him is his home.) And it’s to Spielberg’s credit that he doesn’t offer an easy answer — every solution to Jim’s problem comes with its own difficulties.

The camp commandant flees, the teen Kamikaze next door can’t get his plane off the ground, Basie vanishes and the British trudge like sheep toward the city. Jim throws the suitcase that bears his name, and contains all his identity, into the river. None of the authorities Jim has pursued have turned out to be up to the task.

The Brits arrive in an abandoned stadium, where all their precious belongings are being stored like a ruling-class yard sale. Jim finds his family’s limousine and camps out there with the ailing Mrs. Victor. Mrs. Victor dies in the night and Jim awakens to see the flash of the atomic bomb — the ultimate authority in this conflict, which Jim mistakes for Mrs. Victor’s soul ascending into Heaven. In that moment, Mrs. Victor, who symbolizes Britain, Mother and sex object for Jim, is consumed by death, fused in his mind with the unanswerable power of the dawn of the atomic age.

His identity annihilated and with nowhere else to go, Jim heads back to the internment camp where, unexpectedly, supply canisters drop from the sky and Jim finds himself in a world of plenty. In a mirror of Act II, Jim, at home in this place of homelessness, rides his bike around the deserted camp, picking up chocolate bars, cans of milk and cartons of cigarettes. He meets up with his Japanese Kamikaze friend, who is killed by Basie, who has come back to loot the camp and move on. He tries to bring the Kamikaze back to life, assuming, for a moment, the authority that he’s been searching for throughout the movie. Soon the American army shows up and Jim gratefully “surrenders” to them.

Shortly thereafter, Jim is reunited with his parents at an orphanage. They don’t recognize him at first and he doesn’t recognize them at all. What would ordinarily be a crushing Spielberg moment of reunion is undercut, both by Jim’s loss of identity and by his newly-won skepticism. Confronted with his mother, he inspects her, rather like one would inspect a gift horse, touching her lipstick, scrutinizing her hair.

At the end of this, Spielberg’s most complex, most ambitious, most daring, least sentimental movie yet, Jim is restored to “his place,” as the son of a wealthy British family, but in another sense he will never be the same, and the final shot is of his suitcase, still adrift, in the harbor of Shanghai.hitcounter


« Previous PageNext Page »