For this lagniappe episode of The Swampflix Podcast, Boomer & Brandon discuss Paul Bartel’s entertainment-industry satire Scenes from the Class Struggle in Beverly Hills (1989).
I’ve been seeing a lot of critical re-evaluation of Celine Song’s Past Lives in recent days, particularly as those who “saw through” its “mediocrity” from the beginning are feeling vindicated by the lukewarm reception of follow up feature Materialists. I couldn’t agree less about the quality of Past Lives, a movie I rated five stars and which was my third favorite film of 2023. On the other hand, that this movie is getting mixed to middling reviews isn’t a huge surprise to me, either. All the declarations that “the old-school romcom is back, baby!” that surrounded this film’s release may have been more of a threat than a promise. There’s also a tendency toward more drama than comedy, and there are moments where the slow burn that made Past Lives so powerful plays out here as more drawn out and tedious, but never so much that you’re ever truly bored.
Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a professional matchmaker living in NYC for an organization called Adore. As the film opens, she is celebrating her ninth match that has resulted in a marriage, and she’ll be attending the wedding solo. At the wedding, she runs into her ex-boyfriend, aspiring actor John (Chris Evans), with whom she interacts warmly and fondly; she also meets brother of the groom Harry (Pedro Pascal), a handsome, wealthy socialite. Although she encourages Harry to join Adore as a client, citing that he’s a perfect package for their clientele and the proverbial “unicorn,” he seems most interested in pursuing her. In a flashback, we see that she and John broke up after an argument that was the result of his meager financial situation and both her frustration with his barely making ends meet and her own self-hatred over her materialistic nature. Meanwhile, in spite of her overall success in her field, Lucy is having trouble finding a good match for her client Sophie (Zoë Winters), a lawyer in her 30s, and when she thinks she’s finally made a good match, something tragic happens that shakes her faith in herself and her foundations.
Materialists is about two things: the stories that we tell ourselves about ourselves, and what gets lost when love is treated like capital – a measurable, tradable commodity. Early on, Lucy compares her work to that of a mortician or an insurance claims agent, in that she treats matchmaking as a mechanical enterprise. Boxes checked in Subject A’s columns match boxes checked in Subject B’s column, and we’ve got love. She gives the hard sell on Adore to several of the women at her client’s wedding, talking about love as an ineffable and beautiful thing, that matchmaking isn’t about finding someone to be with for the next ten years but a “nursing home partner” and a “grave buddy.” It’s hard to tell where the real Lucy is in all of this, how much of what we see is her putting on a show, but when we see her in a moment of vulnerability with her boss, Violet (Marin Ireland), she admits that she’s not interested in dating because she wants her next partner to be her husband, and that her ultimate goal at present is to marry a man who is wealthy enough to provide for her. At other times when it’s clear that the facade is slipping, she tells John that he shouldn’t want to be with her because she believes that, at her core, she’s a cold, unfeeling person who is only concerned with marrying rich. She wishes that she could be the kind of woman whose love for John would have kept them together despite his inability to take her to fancy restaurants instead of the corner Halal stand, but she isn’t, at least not until the story that she’s told herself about who she is professionally crumbles. When Sophie is assaulted by the man that Lucy matched her with, Lucy is confronted with the unfortunate truth that this is something that happens in their business because many terrible people are able to charm their way past attempts to gatekeep them. Lucy realizes that her narrative of being the girlboss of twenty-first century luxury courtship is both (a) not true, and (b) perhaps not that important, and that love is more than a series of compatibility tests.
What’s fascinating about the way that people talk about love is how transactional it all is. When the bride from the beginning of the film has cold feet, Lucy is ushered in to see her; the woman asks why she’s even getting married in the first place, since her family doesn’t need a cow or to seal a political pact through ritual like previous generations. Lucy leads her to the truth, that the bride’s sister’s jealousy over how the groom was more handsome and taller than her own husband made the pride feel valuable, and that gets her up on her feet and down the aisle. We get a montage of several of Lucy’s clients, both men and women, and these segments lean a little bit more into the comedy than the mostly dramatic film. Although Sophie is the first one that Lucy interacts with on screen (over a phone call) and it makes her come across as shallow and unpleasable, but she pales in comparison to some of the people we meet later. There’s one client who clearly doesn’t know or doesn’t care how his requests come across, as he opens by talking about wanting to meet a woman who shares similar interests, who’s seen all the old classics and probably likes the same kind of music, but he also insists that his potential matches be in their twenties (he is forty-eight); when pressed, he says that even twenty-seven is “basically thirties.” Lucy has to put on a pleasant face with all of them, and it’s clear that she finds many of these people to be creepy and weird, but she also lives inside of their world insofar as she also treats love like, as she herself puts it, math, and the film is about her realization that there are some things that can’t be reduced to numbers and checklists.
This one doesn’t have the same heart as Past Lives did, and I don’t think that it’s trying to. That film was much more introspective and thoughtful, and this one isn’t trying to recreate that tone so much as explore a different one. It’s also a more standard and formulaic one, but at least it’s been a while since there was such an earnest send-up of the canonical romantic comedy. It’s subversive in that there’s never a moment when the love triangle seems like it could ever possibly resolve with anything other than John and Lucy giving things another chance. Harry’s successful wining and dining of Lucy requires that we buy that our leading lady’s character arc will be accepting that she’s exactly as shallow and materialistic as she perceives (the persona she has created of) herself to be and she’ll be picking the rich guy? Be real. Within this paradigm of two love interests, one rich and one poor, for there to be a narrative at all requires that she not end up with the guy in whom she initially expresses a shallow interest. Where this breaks from the mould of the standard plot structure is that most of these films would have both love interests vying for Lucy at the same time, but the film is fairly well bifurcated right in the middle where she moves from one to the other, with the rejected partner disappearing from the plot after Lucy’s life is upended.
A lot of whether this film will work for you depends on how you feel about Dakota Johnson and her acting style. Prior to her matchmaking career Lucy was, like John, attempting to make it as an actress, but she got a regular (well, sort of) job instead while he continued to pursue his artistic passions. This means that there is a conversation in which Lucy says things like “I decided acting wasn’t for me,” and “I was never a very good actor,” and I just know that the moment this movie hits video on demand, people are going to run wild with screenshots of these moments and attempt to use them to dunk on Dakota. In this house, we call those haters, and there’s not a hate campaign in this world strong enough to make me turn on myMadame Web. Before she was a director, Song was a playwright (and a matchmaker), and it’s in the scenes in which Lucy interacts with clients that the film feels the most like a stage play, with strong repartee, and it’s in these scenes that Johnson is the most believable. She’s as charming here to me as she was in Am I OK?, but while this film is much more well-made and richly photographed, it doesn’t connect with me on an emotional level.
When I sat in the darkness staring up at Past Lives two years ago, it resonated with me deeply. Like Hae Sung, I had recently socially encountered an old … well, an old something let’s say, and the spark that still lingered there was such a powerful reminder of what that kind of interaction could feel like that I broke things off with someone I had been seeing casually for a couple of months because that electricity and chemistry wasn’t there. Circumstances with my old flame meant that, like Hae Sung and Nora, it could never be, no matter how much in-yun there may have been between us. There was a potency to the reality of it all that left an indelible imprint on me, and which simply is not a presence in Materialists. It may not be fair to judge this movie based on that criterion, especially since Materialists isn’t trying to be as deep as its author’s previous work, but it is nonetheless an area that it’s lacking. And before you jump to the conclusion that I may have overrated Past Lives as a result of my empathic rapport with its characters, you should know that I actually cried more during Materialists than I did Past Lives. The movie wasn’t connecting with me on the same emotional level as Hae Sung did, but the treatment of love as capital and the way that the film utilized that to find places in me that are still smarting from more recent misadventures and tribulations in the bottomless open sea that is contemporary love and dating … it did get to me. It didn’t get to me by resonance; it just happened to make me recall some misfires of late and then give me too much time to dwell on those before the film moved on to the next scene. When I watch Past Lives again, I will cry again. This one? Not so much.
This is a cute movie. Serviceable, occasionally goofy, and mostly charming, I’m glad that it exists, even if I’m not sure it will have staying power.
While attending a recent screening at my local arthouse, I pointed out to my companions that there was going to be several screenings of Rear Window the coming weekend and gave it my typical whole-hearted recommendation. These were two of my younger friends who mentioned that they’ve seen far too few of Alfred Hitchcock’s films, but one of them had been in a high school theater production of The Lodger, which was quite the coincidence as I had a library copy of the DVD at home at that very moment. It’s also available on the Criterion app and Tubi (at least at the time of this writing), which means it’s pretty accessible, for anyone who might be interested. I know that a silent film is a hard sell these days, but I liked this one quite a lot and loved its use of expressionistic composition and dark atmosphere and recommend checking it out.
The Lodger (subtitled A Story of the London Fog) is a 1927 thriller from the Master of Suspense, his third film. It largely centers around one family’s experiences with a new lodger in their boarding house while the city at large quivers in fear at the actions of a serial killer leaving notes identifying themself as “The Avenger.” Mr. and Mrs. Bunting are caring and doting parents to their daughter, Daisy, a blonde young fashion model still living at home with them. Every Tuesday night for months, a blonde woman has been found murdered by the Avenger, and the police seem at a loss. The Buntings are friends with a detective named Joe Chandler, who is visiting them when news of the seventh victim arrives. That same night, a dark and imposing man appears at the Bunting home in response to their “room to let” sign. Joe is eventually put on the case to find the Avenger, and although he is able to discern a pattern from the location of the killings and estimate the general location of the next slaying, his jealousy over the growing attraction between the lodger and Daisy leads him to suspect the lodger of being the killer. When a search of the lodger’s, um, lodgings leads him to a map of the victims’ locations and clippings about the killings, the lodger is arrested, but Daisy helps him to escape, even though she (and we) still have no evidence of his innocence.
There were moments during the course of the film that I was worried we were headed toward that easiest conclusion, but I should have known that even in this earliest part of his career, Hitchcock would already be working in a more subversive manner. In recent discussions on the podcast of Strangers on a Train, we talked about how Hitchcock never had much respect for the police, individually or institutionally, and there are already elements of this at play. Joe Chandler may manage to put together some clues about the real Avenger, but his personal failures of pettiness and jealousy lead him to pursue an innocent man, to the point that during his flight from the law the lodger is almost lynched by a mob while the real killer is elsewhere racking up yet another body. Hitchcock also loved to tell (and retell) the story of an innocent man being wrongly accused and pursued, from The 39 Steps to To Catch a Thief to North by Northwest to Frenzy, so it’s no surprise that it turned up as a plot point in this early work of his. I did expect there to be a bit more of a twist surrounding Joe, however.
It’s never quite clear exactly what his relationship is to Daisy. Sometimes, she seems very receptive to his wooing, but at other times rejects his advances, although it’s a possible interpretation that her rejection largely occurs in scenes in which her parents are present. In their first scene together, he flirts with her by cutting a heart shape out of the dough that her mother is preparing and placing it in front of her, to which Daisy responds by tearing the heart in half and handing it back to him. To me, this established that his interest was unwelcome, but there are other scenes in which she welcomes his attention with enthusiasm. At the time of release, Joe’s actor Malcolm Keen was 40 years old, and he looks older. I’d probably attribute it to the technological limits of the time rather than to an intentional aesthetic choice, but Keen’s fair complexion and the make-up available at the time renders him, well, a bit ghastly-looking. In comparison, although Ivor Novello’s lodger character arrives at the Bunting house looking and behaving like a total weirdo, once he settles in, he reveals himself to be as beautiful as he is brooding. As a result, although I was willing to believe that the film was headed toward the revelation that the lodger was the Avenger as easily as it might have been headed toward his innocence, I also thought it might be revealed that Joe was the Avenger, but that might be my expectations being a little too close to modernity. The Avenger is apprehended entirely offscreen, his identity never revealed, but the audience of today looks at this rather small cast of characters and automatically assume that one of the characters has to be the killer. Through that lens, it could only be Joe, but that wasn’t really a trope of the medium yet.
I wasn’t expecting 28 Weeks Later to be as good as it was. It came out during a particularly academically rigorous (and financially unstable) year for me, and I’m not sure that I ever even saw any advertising for this one. Dismissal of the film by Alex Garland, who wrote both 28 Days Later and 28 Years Later, also never made me particularly interested in revisiting it, until I recently saw 28 Years and thoroughly enjoyed it. I’ve also always loved Robert Carlyle’s work as an actor, and his involvement also appealed to me. Although a friend let me know that this one is streaming on Tubi—just in time for the sequel’s release—I was able to find a DVD copy at my local video store, and I was pleasantly surprised, even if it isn’t as emotionally fulfilling as either of the films that precede or follow it.
In the opening scene, Don Harris (Carlyle) is holed up in a rural farmhouse with his wife Alice and a few other survivors of the rage virus, sometime during the early days of the plague’s spread. An uninfected boy appears at the house and begs to be let in, and although they get him inside, the horde of infected who were chasing him then fall upon the house and kill/infect everyone inside. Only Don manages to escape, fleeing across the field to a small boat with an outboard motor and getting away, although not before he sees his wife at a window in the house, not yet dead or infected, as she pleads for help. Moments later, she’s gone from the window — too late. Some six or seven months (or 28 weeks, if you will) later, Don is now living in “District 1” of London, where British Isles residents who were out of the country when the outbreak occurred are being repatriated. The infected seem to have completely died out, having succumbed to starvation and exposure in the half a year since the Rage ravaged the population.
A NATO force overseen by Americans is assisting in the homecoming efforts and maintaining a military presence in order to protect the quarantine zone (epitomized in the form of Jeremy Renner’s sniper character, Doyle) and provide testing on the homebound travelers (represented by Scarlet, the chief medical officer played by Rose Byrne). Don’s two children, twelve-year-old Andy and teenaged Tammy (Imogen Poots) return home and are reunited with their father, who simplifies the story of their mother’s death by telling them only that she died. Their first night back, Andy confides in his sister that he worries he’ll forget his mother’s face, and the next morning the two of them slip through the NATO defenses and make their way to their old house to gather photos and other belongings. To their surprise, they find their mother there, albeit disoriented and confused, and she is immediately taken back to the base. Once there, Scarlet finds that Alice was bitten and that this means she is an asymptomatic carrier of the rage virus, and that her blood may even hold an answer to a potential vaccine or cure. Before she can convince General Stone (Idris Elba) of the potential, however, Alice has already Typhoid Mary-d the rage back into the safety zone, and it’s already too late to stop the spread.
Despite Alex Garland’s less-than-enthusiastic position, 28 Weeks Later is quite good. It lacks a lot of the more humanistic elements of the first film, which followed Cillian Murphy’s Jim as he, having slept through the downfall of society and thus is awakened into a changed world without witnessing the staggering amount of violence and life-altering horror that made it so, manages to be the vessel that carries some manner of hope from the world that was into the world that is. Further, while 28 Days Later presaged what a modern urban center experiencing massive devastation might look like (according to legend, they were shooting Jim’s newly-awakened wanderings of deserted post-rage London when the news broke about the Twin Towers), 28 Weeks Later is heavily informed by contemporary events. The uselessness of the U.S. Army in a peacekeeping role seems clearly inspired by the handling of the so-called “War on Terror” in which the States were actively involved, and the choice of a stadium as an evacuation area and the overreaction of armed authority to refugees and evacuees is evocative of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. That doesn’t stop the film’s treatment of the military from being a little “hoo-rah” in certain places, with Scarlet acting as the reasonable authority figure and Doyle evacuating survivors despite orders to kill on site, playing into tropes about good soldiers vs. morally questionable generals. Their ability to protect the citizens within seems doomed to failure from the start, based on the ease with which a couple of teenagers managed to slip out of the quarantine zone, so the criticism of the industrial complex holds. It’s also clever in its plotting, first showing us Alice’s heterochromia in the opening scene and then having Scarlet comment upon Andy having the same mutation during his intake to the quarantine zone, establishing that genetic adaptations like theirs are often inherited, slyly foreshadowing that Andy may have the same ability to be an asymptomatic carrier just like his mother. It’s not a movie that was simply slapped together because someone thought “there should be another one;” it’s genuinely a worthy, if different, successor to the first film.
It doesn’t seem like it was that long ago, but back in 2017 I attended a screening of 28 Days Later at Terror Tuesday at the now-defunct original “Ritz” location of the Alamo Drafthouse (what occupies that space now I dare not name). For weeks after, I listened to “In the House, In a Heartbeat” on repeat, dozens if not hundreds of times. It was a weird time, and I was going through it, but it’s also a certified banger. It was only my second viewing of the movie after a high school rental of the DVD from the Blockbuster in Natchitoches, and in the intro, the programmer at the time talked about how that very DVD was already out of print and that 28 Days Later was unavailable to stream anywhere. That appears to still be the case, despite the release of this relatively high profile sequel, and the ease of access to the 2007 sequel 28 Weeks Later on Tubi. (That Blockbuster is now a pawn shop, apparently, and they appear to have lots of DVDs in stock, so you might be able to find a copy of 28DL there, for what it’s worth.) That screening featured a rate 35MM print of the original film, large portions of which were shot on digital on the Canon XL1 and then were transferred to actual film stock, which resulted in 28DL’s novel visual qualities but also, I believe, makes it difficult to stream . . . or maybe too many people would think there was something wrong with the app rather than understand that the film’s supposed to look like that.
It’s been 23 years since the Rage Virus broke out on screen and half a decade longer since then in-universe. As the opening crawl tells us, the outbreak was contained in continental Europe but that the British Isles were turned into a quarantine zone. After an opening sequence that occurs early in the original outbreak which sees a young boy escaping from his home after his community is slaughtered by rage zombies, including his pastor father, who allows himself to be overrun in a fit of mad religious ecstasy, we cut to … 28 years later. Spike (Alfie Williams) is a twelve-year-old boy living in an island community with his father Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and his mother Isla (Jodie Comer), who is all but bedridden with an affliction that also affects her concentration and memory. The island is kept safe due to tides in the region making it impossible to swim to, but an easily defendable natural causeway emerges at low tide and allows the islanders to go to the mainland to forage for food and firewood. Most boys are taken to the mainland for a rite of passage zombie hunting trip at fourteen or fifteen, but Jamie insists that Spike is ready, and the two set out with their bows to bag a few undead.
Spike is awed by the mainland, and he manages to get an impressive first kill on the hunt. Unfortunately, in the intervening years, the zombies have evolved, with slightly more intelligent and much more difficult to slay “alphas” emerging (one presumes that, without the internet, these folks never learned that the whole “alpha wolf” thing was bad science), who are strong enough to rip out the spinal column of its prey and also seem to be doing so almost ritualistically. Jamie and Spike are forced to take shelter in a dilapidated, abandoned farmhouse, where they also find the corpse of a man who was hung upside down and left for the zombies to find and feast upon, with the name “Jimmy” carved into his flesh. They manage to make it back to safety, barely, and Spike is celebrated at a ceremony that the town holds in his honor, but he finds his father’s tall tales of Spike’s supposed prowess dishonest and is even more disillusioned when he sees his drunken father sneak away from the party with a woman. When a family friend lets slip that a mysterious fire that Spike saw on the mainland may mark the home of a Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), which Jamie previously denied knowing anything about, Spike decides to sneak away with his mother and take her to find Kelson in the hope that he can diagnose and treat her. Along the way, they witness further changes to the infected and find themselves allied with shipwrecked Swedish sailor Erik (Edvin Ryding), the lone survivor of his downed quarantine patrol boat, who serves to give us insight into what the rest of the world is like.
Erik adds a wrinkle here that’s quite a lot of fun. After the first film trafficked heavily in images of desolate urban areas as Jim wandered through the empty husk of London, this one follows its day one prologue with a cut to a somewhat idyllic present day, where a close knit community tends sheep and fashions arrows. It doesn’t initially have the feel of a post-apocalyptic hellscape, as having bacon with breakfast is a lavish anomaly but not completely unheard of. The island itself is lush and green but has a bit of the uncanny about it as well, with the recurring appearance of an unremarked upon creepy mask that multiple characters wear implying that they’ve gotten a little weird with it out there, and it’s a dangling thread left to, no doubt, be developed in the next sequel. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has completely moved on from the whole “zombie plague” thing. People work as delivery drivers, they order packages online, and they have smartphones, all of which are alien concepts to Spike, who has never seen a photograph less than three decades old. When Erik shows him a picture of his girlfriend making a duck face in the moments before his battery dies, Spike has no frame of reference for that social media beauty standard and compares her appearance to a girl in the village whose allergy to shellfish causes her to swell up. Back in that same village hangs a portrait of a fairly young Queen Elizabeth II, because these people aren’t even aware that she’s dead (presuming she died in 2022 in their world as in ours and wasn’t afflicted with the Rage Virus, which I didn’t realize I needed to see until this very moment).
It’s almost unfathomable to think that the rest of the world could simply move on from locking down multiple nations and washing their hands of the whole situation while consigning the people living there to almost certain eventual violent death at the hands of sprinting, infected undead. But then again, we’re kind of living in that world, aren’t we? We’ve all lived through the rampant spread of a virus that killed millions of people, and once everybody got vaccinated (well…) and we reached a point of “well, most people won’t be at risk,” most of society simply did move on, and we’re still driving delivery trucks and ordering packages online and getting new smartphones. Disability advocates have talked for years about how our necropolitical institutions have decided that the wheels of commerce must turn, even if they must be greased by the blood of the chronically ill or otherwise highly susceptible. We also live in a society where horrible, awful, genocidal things are happening “over there,” out of sight and, for many, out of mind; “It’s awful that children are being burned alive by phosphorus ammunition and that huge numbers of people have been abandoned to certain, horrifying death by the rest of the world, but I don’t see what that has to do with me or my need for a frappuccino.” Erik shows us something about the world beyond these quarantined islands; it’s obvious that Spike has grown up never knowing a world before the Rage, but if Erik is even approximately the same age as the actor portraying him, so has he. In Erick’s world, the long term, hands off approach to dealing with the infected is baked into society as something that happens over there and is a simple, sad fact of life, and the wheels just keep turning.
Although he’s only a child and therefore gets billed in the credits after a man who’s on screen for mere moments, the MVP here is relative newcomer Alfie Williams. There’s a quiet resilience to him, and he carries a major, if understated, emotional journey that begins when he returns to the island from his hunting trip. He’s surrounded by the trappings of the village’s celebration of his hunt, including that weird mask thing, but as he watches his father carry on the time honored tradition of exaggerating their bravery and marksmanship, a crack in the foundation of his belief in both his father and his society begins to form. He already has his suspicions about his father’s denial of knowing what the fire in the hills on the mainland might be, and once he sees Jamie getting adulterous and learning that his father knows about Dr. Kelson (and then leaping to the conclusion that Jamie is refusing to get help for Isla from the mainlander), he resolves to put a seemingly doomed plan into motion. Williams pulls all of this off very well for a performer his age, and you never for a moment doubt that Spike is a kid who’s never seen a frisbee or an iPhone. That’s not to denigrate the performances of Comer, who is excellent as always, or Taylor-Johnson, who is very effective here as a husband and father maintaining a brave face despite the clearly imminent death of his ill wife while also living through the end of days. Fiennes is also great here as the broken Dr. Kelson, who makes a great deal out of what amounts to not much screen time.
This film ends on such an overt tonal shift that I think it’s turning off some people. A couple of friends of mine to whom I had been recommending the film happened to be coming out of a screening of 28 Years just as I was headed into a screening of The Materialists. They found the film messy, and although we didn’t get much of a chance to talk about where they felt that it failed, they mentioned that the sudden genre shift was unexpected and jarring. I would also wager that the brief jumpcuts at the beginning of the film that serve to set some of the tone will be off-putting to some, although I rather enjoyed it as a shorthand for the myth-building within the community of the island. Set to the 1915 Taylor Holmes recording of Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Boots,” we get to see a little bit of the culture of the island: their use of archery as their primary method of hunting and anti-infected defense, their fortification of the island, and the training of their young to carry on, all of it interspliced with footage from monochrome war films, Technicolor Robins of Locksley, and other bits of film and video that pass by so quickly that some of the images are almost subliminal. The idea that these people have been reduced to a medieval level of technology in the modern era is an interesting one, and this gets it across in a great visual way but one that is definitely not going to be to everyone’s liking. That’s what makes Danny Boyle Danny Boyle, after all.
The Tragedy of Man is one of the most triumphant pieces of art that I have ever seen. Functionally eternal in scope, limitless in imagination, and infinitely evolving and revolving, it’s no wonder that the 160-minute film took 23 years to complete. It’s lavish in the extreme, inventive in ways that I hadn’t even imagined that an animated film (or any film) could be, and is a fantastically layered text that could take half a dozen viewings to even get the full breadth and scope of it. Even for a film this long, it’s even more dense than you’re imagining, as the spoken dialogue comes at you quickly and at a pace that verges on relentless (and which is occasionally full of thous and thees). This is unsurprising if one considers that it’s based on an 1861 play by Hungarian aristocrat and author Imre Madách, which was itself based on a previous work of his, a dramatic poem that was about four thousand words long. It’s a tale as old as time, as it opens on a celestial scene in which Lucifer argues with God about creation, citing himself as the primeval spirit of negation, the shadow that must exist because of his Creator’s light. He claims that humanity will aspire to become gods themselves in time, and God gives Lucifer his share of the world, which takes the form of the twin trees of Knowledge and Immortality.
You know how this story goes, and once the Fall occurs, Adam takes his first step into the apostasy of apotheosis by deciding that he will live on his own strength. As he and Eve find themselves living in a cave, he is never without Lucifer by his side, in various canine forms, man’s (false) best friend. Eventually, Adam demands that Lucifer follow through on the promised infinite Knowledge that he should have obtained from eating the fruit of temptation, so Lucifer does so by taking Adam on a spiritual journey that encompasses vast swaths of human history as Adam finds himself filling the role of various men of import throughout time. First is ancient Egypt, where Adam quantum leaps into Pharaoh Djoser in 2650 BC, where Eve takes the role of the wife of a slave who dies under the pharaoh’s demanding construction plans, with whom Djoser/Adam then falls in love, leading him to decide to abolish slavery. Lucifer, here appearing as Anubis in all of his dog-headed glory, tells him that history will still be a tapestry full of people enslaving one another, and that despite being as like a god as a man could be for that time, sand and time will reduce it all to nothing, and his proclamations of equality will change little, if anything. This will be the recurring theme of each of the time frames that Lucifer shows to Adam: mankind is on an eternal sinusoidal curve, and every time some kind of progress is made, it is inevitably corrupted because humans are savages at heart.
What I haven’t mentioned yet is that the above opening captures almost half a dozen different aesthetic art styles within those first plot developments. Lucifer and God’s conversation plays out in nebulous, colorful cosmos that represent all of existence and God’s permeation of every aspect of it, with Lucifer as a pure negative space within all of that firmament, like a silhouette animation. After the expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve suddenly have hyperrealistic features, with everything being animated in a way that’s reminiscent of illustrated children’s books about cavemen. They’re honestly ugly to look at, and it works as an externalization of their fall from beings of perfected flesh to mortal meat. Much of the Egyptian segment is made up of flatly rendered images that evoke the stiff body language of hieroglyphic figures, but at other times it shows both the labor below and Djoser/Adam gazing upon it. And so, the art changes between (and within) different time periods, usually choosing and sticking to a color palette for each segment but not to one specific style. When Adam becomes Militiades in Greece during the 5th century BCE, the animation style takes on the appearance of the images emblazoned on Grecian pottery, and when he finds himself in first century Rome, gladiators battle it out in moving mosaics. The film never stops to let you catch your breath, and by the two-hour mark I was leaning forward in my seat in eager anticipation, metaphorically headlong.
Eventually, Adam’s journey catches up to the life and times of Christ, and he (and Eve) reconnect with God through him, embracing his message of love and fraternity, but they then watch in disappointed horror as Adam, in the form of Crusader Tancred, watches as the message that seemed poised to save mankind from itself falls into sectarian violence and strategy, with a debate between two branches of Christianity in the midst of a schism morphing into the shapes of the churches that they represent, which bash against each other until nothing is left but blood and bricks. With Adam then embodying Johannes Kepler in the seventeenth century (in a style of mostly monochromatic moving woodprints), it seems like scientific and rational progress will be the thing which leads humanity out of the darkness, only for Adam to then find himself in the stead of French Revolutionary figure Georges Danton, who is initially lauded for his anti-aristocratic stance but who finds himself executed when the mob considers him insufficiently radical. Adam finds himself wishing for a world in which society is organized along principles for the common good, and then he gets to see what that future will (or might) look like, in which all that remains of nature are the genetically modified beasts and flora and in which nations have been completely abolished. Of course, the end of nations has not meant the end of the state, as he learns quickly when he bears witness to a woman being severely punished when she refuses to hand her son over to the state for education and assignment to employment when he comes of age (he can’t be more than ten). Further in the future still, Adam is a giant floating in the void just beyond earth’s atmosphere, where machines arrive and replace his organic parts with mechanical ones that turn him into a humanoid spaceship, before he returns to see man’s end, in a distant ice age in which all that remains of Adam’s progeny are savages, but Lucifer argues that despite their bestial mutations, they are no different from humans of any other era, as people never fundamentally change.
In all of these situations, Lucifer always brings Adam to the end of an age of progress, showing or implying the inevitable backward swing of the pendulum that (we hope) always bends in an arc toward justice. It’s arguable that this can’t be helped; he is, after all, the embodiment of shadow and obfuscation, and so there’s no purpose in showing Adam how democracy is born when he can instead reveal how it dies. That role falls to Eve, who likewise appears in every segment to be the voice of reason and hope for the future to counterpose the fatalistic nihilism that Lucifer is sowing into her husband’s mind. She’s the widowed slave whose love of Djoser ends slavery (at least for a time), both a guillotined aristocrat and a pro-Terror prostitute in Revolutionary France, the faithful wife of Militiades and the unfaithful wife of Kepler, and she is the woman who refuses to allow the state to essentially kidnap her child in the materialist future. The film’s a little trite and old fashioned in the way that it treats gender, as Adam (and therefore men) is always the historic actor while Eve (and thus women) exists to pull him back from the edge of the abyss, over and over again, but given that the source material predates the Transcontinental Railroad, it’s understandable.
I can’t stress enough just what an amazing technical achievement this is. There are images from this that will stick with me forever. I can’t stop seeing the people of France dissolve into a great wave of red and blue that bears Danton/Adam aloft upon itself, or the shadow of the guillotine that is cast across his face. As the 20th century’s present comes into view, the endless gears of existence grind on, first as soldiers fall within the teeth of the cogs of the machine, followed by various pop culture figures as they replace the gods of eras past, and it feels like it could go on for the rest of time. And then it does. For all of its overt religiosity, there’s no denying that this is a monumental work of inarguable artistic relevance. At just under three hours, it’ll be a little while before I dig into it again, but I hope that it opens up for me even more when I find my way back to it again.
D.O.A. is a tight little noir thriller (#89 in Douglas Brode’s list in Edge of Your Seat, for those of you playing along at home) that’s one of the most perfect encapsulations of the genre. At 82 minutes, there’s almost no fat to be trimmed, and since it lapsed into the public domain years ago because of failure to renew the copyright, it’s accessible pretty much anywhere. Director Rudolph Maté, who would go on to helm When Worlds Collide just a year later, had risen through the ranks as a cinematographer, having earned his stripes on films as varied and well-remembered as Carl Theodor Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc and Vampyr, Alfred Hitchcock’s The Foreign Correspondent, and the Rita Hayworth vehicle Gilda from director Charles Vidor. That eye for composition is striking in the film’s opening sequence, a minutes-long tracking shot that follows a man through a vast and echoey police station to find a particular detective so that he can report a murder: his own.
Frank Bigelow (Edmond O’Brien) is an accountant and notary public in the desert town of Banning, California, population about seven thousand at the time. His secretary, Paula (Pamela Britton) is madly in love with him, a situation that he seems disinterested in either quashing or pursuing. He springs the news to her that he’s taking a solo weekend trip to San Francisco, much to her disappointment, but there’s nothing she can do to stop him, and away he goes. Arriving at his lodgings, he discovers that the place is full of salesmen who have just wrapped up an annual conference and are holding various parties all over the hotel. The place is lousy with pretty ladies in expensive fur coats, and Frank seems more than ready to sow some oats hither and yon, but not before he returns Paula’s messages. She’s not pleased to hear all the caterwauling in the background, but she nevertheless dutifully reports that a man named Eugene Philips, an importer-exporter, had been desperately trying to reach him all afternoon, ending with the cryptic statement that if he didn’t talk to Frank right away “it would be too late.” Frank goes out with the salesmen from the room across the hall to a jazz bar, where the host’s wife starts to get a little too handsy, and he excuses himself to make small talk with a pretty blonde at the bar. Distracted, he doesn’t notice the lurking figure with his back to the camera surreptitiously slipping something into his drink. The next morning, he feels extremely ill and gets a terminal diagnosis; he’s ingested the “luminous toxin,” a poison with no antidote, and now he has only days left to live, not much time to find out who his killer is.
There’s a lot that happens in the first act of this one, which is great, since it means that the second and third acts move at a breakneck speed as Frank works to pull at all of the threads of a decently convoluted conspiracy and solve his own murder before he drops dead. Paula is a fascinating character, as she initially comes off as slightly off-putting, pestering Frank to the point of workplace sexual harassment. She insists that he take her out for a drink and is notably upset that Frank made plans for a weekend trip that didn’t include her, but she also seems to realize that this is Frank taking an opportunity to give himself one last weekend as a swinging bachelor before settling into a life with her in Banning. Upon awakening in San Francisco on Saturday morning, he’s clearly ready to go back and marry Paula, even before he learns that he’s dying. Once he tells her that he needs her, she shows up to act as his sidekick for the rest of the film, and there’s real affection there. The great tragedy may be that if she hadn’t been suffocating him so, he might not have felt the need to spend a weekend away from her, and then he wouldn’t have been poisoned. Alas. Not that it would have helped save Eugene Phillips, who was going to “commit suicide” that Friday night one way or another.
One of the other great tragedies in this has a major noir bent, which is the trope of the innocent man caught up in a dangerous web of lies and crime. For Frank, it comes down to a particular bill of sale that he notarized for Phillips months in the past, one that would have proved the dead man’s innocence. It’s not really spoiling much; the film’s electric energy all revolves around Frank going from place to place and getting answers that lead to more questions, all leading back to Phillips’s untimely demise. Who’s the real villain here? Is it Phillips’s brother, who was carrying on an affair with his sister-in-law? Is it Halliday, Eugene’s business partner? Is it the mysterious George Reynolds, whom no one seems to have ever seen and which may be no more than an alias? It’s a tight little mystery that’s completely streamlined. Just as Frank is running out of time, he grows increasingly frantic and desperate to find out who’s responsible for setting his death in motion and ensure that Paula is out of their reach, and the film feels similarly harried and headlong as it rushes toward the conclusion.
Maté’s is a name that one doesn’t hear bandied about in cinephile circles all that much. It can’t help that, looking at his CV, his filmography is all over the place. There are several films noir listed there, many of which seem intriguing even if I’ve never heard of them, like Union Station starring William Holden, Paula starring Loretta Young, and Forbidden starring Tony Curtis. But in the midst of those are a motley assortment of historical adventures (The Prince Who Was a Thief, The Black Shield of Falworth, and The 300 Spartans), romantic comedies (It Had to Be You, Sally and Saint Anne), Oscar bait (No Sad Songs for Me), and far, far too many Westerns to name. The man worked, and his talent is clear here, and I’m excited to see if I can track down some of his other noir and crime thrillers, even if I have no interest in Siege at Red River, The Far Horizons, or The Rawhide Years. The performances here are great as well, as O’Brien perfectly embodies a man who’s clearly been spending too much time helping farmers file their taxes and fending off Paula’s pawing at him and just needs to know he could still get a city girl’s number, even if he can’t follow through with ringing her up. Britton also walks a narrow tightrope here, needing to play Paula as written while also making her someone we find likable enough to root for her and Frank to get together. With such a short time commitment and widespread availability (it’s even on Tubi), D.O.A. is worth checking out.
While viewing the recent political satire Mountainhead, I kept thinking about that frequent online refrain that people use as a response whenever someone posts something conspiracy-addled or which otherwise blows the mind of the poster: “This must hit so hard if you’re stupid.” Mountainhead itself is not one of those movies, as for whatever issues one may have with it, it’s certainly not meant to appeal to the kind of people whose ignorance gives them delusions of intelligence; it’s a mockery of those people. Many lines that came out of the mouths of those characters felt like exactly the kind of thing that probably sounds very smart to very stupid people. I was also reminded of the phrase while watching the new action flick Ballerina, advertised as being “from the world of John Wick.” I’m fairly partial to the John Wick series, lumping the first three films together in the #40 slot on a list of my 100 favorite films of the 2010s (and later giving John Wick 4 a 4.5 star rating when it came out a couple of years ago). Even with that being said, that series and this spin-off are exactly the kind of films in which the plot exists solely to put the protagonist through the ringer and have them face off against hordes of killers, setting them up and mowing them down. The narrative choice of introducing a whole underworld society of assassins with their own rules, regulations, and responsibilities in the first film allowed for the franchise to let that choice of mythos grow (and perhaps even balloon and bloat). By the fourth film, we were introduced to the concept of “The Table” that oversees the whole masquerade, “Harbingers” who enforce their rules and customs, “Adjudicators” who investigate potential violations of the house rules of the Continental hotels, a vast network of intelligence operatives posing as panhandlers and led by “The Bowery King,” and the Ruska Roma, the organization that trained John Wick in his youth and which presents itself to the world as a premier dance theater and academy while disguising its role as a school for assassins. All of which probably hits so hard . . . if, well, you know the rest. But sometimes, it’s okay to dare to be stupid.
The last of these was introduced in John Wick 3, when Wick (Keanu Reeves) meets with The Director (Anjelica Huston) to call in a favor. Ballerina has been in the works since before that time, when Lionsgate purchased the first script from screenwriter Shay Hatten with the intent to adapt it as part of the John Wick series. Hatten was then brought on to write both JW3 and JW4, which allowed him to plant the seeds for Ballerina, with the film eventually being produced nearly ten years after initial conception, with Len Wiseman, director of the first two Underworld films and former husband of their star Kate Beckinsale. Wiseman also directed that Total Recall remake that everyone hated, which, when placed alongside the duds in Hatten’s writing resume (which includes three Zack Snyder partnerships, for Army of the Dead and parts one and two of Rebel Moon), does not give one the impression that Ballerina was destined for greatness. It more than succeeds, however, at carrying the torch of this series, and is the first big dumb blockbuster of the summer, which I mean with all due respect.
Javier Macarro (David Castañeda) is raising his daughter, Eve, in a large waterfront mansion home, where he dotes on and adores her. One night, their home is invaded by a man (Gabriel Byrne) who intends to kill Javier and return Eve to her mother’s family, citing that Javier had no right to steal her away. Javier manages to kill all of the man’s henchmen but their leader escapes, and Javier succumbs to his wounds. This prompts the arrival of Winston (Ian McShane), the manager of the New York Continental, who delivers Eve to the Tartakovsky Theatre and its Director, in the hopes that she might find her place in the world of assassins in which her father was raised. Twelve years later, Eve (Ana de Armas) has spent all of this time learning both ballet and the art of delivering death, although she’s struggling with the latter more than the former. After a pep talk from mentor Nogi (Sharon Duncan-Brewster) in which she is encouraged to “fight like a girl” (i.e., dirty), and when she eavesdrops on the conversation between John Wick and The Director in JW3 and then asks the man himself for advice, Eve starts to gain the upper hand over her opponents. After passing her final test, gets her first field deployment as an escort for the daughter of a rich man whose enemies may attempt to abduct and ransom her. After an impressive action sequence in an icy nightclub called -11, her getaway is foiled by the sudden appearance of an assassin whom she manages to subdue, discovering that he has the same scarification that her father’s would-be killers had. The Director refuses to reveal any information, which leads Eve to cash in on her connection to Winston, who points her in the direction of a mysterious man hiding out at the Continental in Prague (Norman Reedus) who might be able to tell her more.
Strangely enough for these movies, the mythbuilding that has occasionally been a stumbling block for the series as it grew is hamstrung here. We eventually learn that Byrne’s character is the “Chancellor” of a cult that makes its home in the seemingly quaint European mountain town of Hallstedt, but while we hear about this cult over and over again, we never get any real idea about what their beliefs or goals are. There’s an electrifying scene early on in which Eve is put to her final graduation test at the dance academy, which sees her put in a room at a table with two disassembled guns, and another woman (played by Rila Fukushima, who is always welcome on my screen) enters, clearly furious and distraught that she’s been reduced to “a test.” When Eve asks her who she is, she tells her that she’s Eve, “in ten years.” Then a timer starts and she starts assembling the gun and … all we know is that Eve passed. When arriving at Hallstedt, all we learn about the people living there is that (a) no one is allowed to leave, and (b) it appears to serve the purpose of some kind of retirement home for past killers, where they can settle down and raise children. Other than the fact that you can check out any time you like but can never leave, there’s no indication that the so-called “cult” has any foundational beliefs or ideologies, and there’s a real missed opportunity there. Also, since most of us have seen John Wick 4, we know that John is destined to die, and sooner than later. Here, the film gives us two potential endpoints for Eve’s journey that show she doesn’t have to follow the same path that he does—retirement or “retirement”—but the film doesn’t seem all that interested in developing either of these ideas. They might be saving it for the sequel, but as a man who always loves fiction with cults in it, I was a mite disappointed that we never learned that the cult worships a personification of Death or is preparing for some kind of evil version of the Rapture, or anything else that would make them a “cult” and not a convenience for the narrative. Even the familial connections that we learn Eve has in Hallstadt are pretty obvious and end up being pretty irrelevant within minutes of learning them, and it wouldn’t be a Hollywood script if Eve wasn’t offered something tempting to her followed by someone making the obvious joke (which probably hits so hard if you’re stupid).
The action here is stellar, as always. I was hoping that we would get to spend a little more time with Eve’s learning curve, and that is an element. The thing about John Wick is that he’s an unstoppable force. You might be able to slow him down a little but, but you can never stop him, and the franchise is built entirely around watching him utterly destroy everything that gets placed in front of him. It’s like the Mission: Impossible or Final Destination films in that way; you’re here to watch the same movie as last time and the time before that, and you’re going to like it. When I mentioned to a friend of mine that I was going to see this one, he said that he had tried to get into the first one and couldn’t, complaining “It’s just Keanu Reeves killing people,” and I replied that these are movies that are more concerned with the ballet of violence. Ballerina, naturally, is no different from the other John Wicks in that way, as we get to see Eve use a pair of ice skates in a way that Hans Brinker could never have imagined, tear through cultists with a flamethrower (ho ho ho), and utterly destroy a kill team that was foolish enough to bring guns to a grenade fight. While we do get to see her improve, it’s done in a fairly trite way, as Eve initially struggles to gain the upper hand in matches against her larger, male sparring partners, until Nogi tells her to “fight like a girl,” at which point she starts kicking dudes in the nuts and becomes the class’s top dog. It feels like a very 90s line and a very 90s cliché, but at least it gets a fun callback later when Eve, armed only with rubber bullets, shoots one of her attackers in the groin. Her evolution to killer happens fairly quickly over the course of a montage and by the time we see her in the field after a two-month jump, she’s almost unstoppable.
I suppose that this is better than watching her struggle a lot more than John does in his films, because the audience for these movies can trend a little toxic. I’m sure that the people who are already calling her a Mary Sue in some dark, roach-infested corner of the internet would have been complaining about her being a weak and ineffective hero in comparison to the unflappable Chad John Wick if we had gotten to see her spend a little more time on the road to becoming a finely tuned killing machine. Instead, the film plays it smart by showing us that Eve is fully dedicated and will push herself past her limits even when she falls short in her academic environment, such as it is, and then cuts to her displaying an almost John Wick-level of hypercompetence in the field of dealing death. Later, when her quest to avenge her father (and rescue a young girl whose father was willing to die to get her away from Hallstedt but who wasn’t as successful as Eve’s father) triggers a sharp exchange between the cult and the Roma Ruska with the promise of a war between them if Eve isn’t stopped, the Director calls in the favor John Wick owes her and sends him to Hallstedt. For her part, Eve is brave enough to try and fight him when he shows up on the scene, and although she’s giving it her all, it’s immediately clear that she’s completely outclassed by him. She’d be dead within moments if John wasn’t willing to hear her out and, sympathetic to her story, he gives her until midnight before he hunts her down. It’s a good balance that Eve seems just as implacable as John until she’s actually face-to-face with him in a combat situation and he’s completely unfazed, dodging her attacks without breaking a sweat.
Beyond the aforementioned lack of depth given to the cult, my other big complaint about this film is that there’s just not enough ballet for a movie called Ballerina. We see Eve dance as a child and her tragic memento of her dead father is a wind-up ballerina, but after the opening credits, the ballet doesn’t come up again until the end, when Eve wistfully watches a performance by a former classmate who washed out (and fell back on her dream career of being a ballerina). I was really hoping that there would be a lot more dance-inspired action happening here, as would befit the title and concept. The film does seem more hesitant to show de Armas shooting people while Reeves was doing lots of gun-fu in his outings, which stood out to me a lot when her kit for her first mission is a non-lethal gun. We get to see her shoot a few people in Hallstedt, but until that point, we’re mostly limited to hand-to-hand combat, improvised weapons, and a whole lot of grenadery. I initially thought that this might be some old-fashioned Hollywood sexism happening in that they presume we won’t tolerate women being as violent as we allow men to be, but later in the film she burns dozens of men and women to death without flinching, which is even more horrific, so I’m not really sure. But given how much combat happened in the first half of the movie, would it have hurt to have Eve doing some pirouettes or en pointes somewhere to make her fighting style more distinct from John’s? In the moment in which she finds herself with a pair of skates in a boathouse and standing on the ice below the dock, I got terribly excited that we were about to see some ice dancing/fighting, but instead she just slices and dices. That’s all well and good (and hits hard if stupid), but it felt like a missed opportunity. This film could have been called Equestrian: From the World of John Wick and been about a girl’s riding academy that was secretly a cover for murder training and the effect on both the plot and the action would be negligible. If we go back to this well again, maybe we’ll get to see it next time.
For this lagniappe episode of The Swampflix Podcast, Boomer & Brandon discuss Luis Buñuel’s surrealist satire The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972), in which a small party of upper-class snobs are repeatedly deprived of their dinner.
I’ve never seen Succession, so I wasn’t terribly interested when I heard that the show’s creator had written and directed a new direct-to-HBO feature, but I found myself on a couch watching it with friends on a lazy Sunday afternoon after a dip in a municipal pool. Of the five of us, two of them had already watched it within the past couple of days and were excited to watch it again, one of whom was Erstwhile Roommate of Boomer, who described the film as having one of the funniest sequences he had ever seen in a movie. After this declaration, he expressed that he hoped he hadn’t hyped it up too much. This did turn out to be probably the funniest movie I’ve seen so far this year, although general audiences don’t seem to be connecting with it.
Hugo Van Yalk (Jason Schwartzman), known to his “friends” as “Souper,” has invited the rest of said quartet to his recently constructed mansion, Mountainhead, in the remote mountains of Utah. The group, which calls themselves the “Brewsters” (presumably a play on Brewster’s Millions), consists of mega-wealthy a-holes who only have a few rules for when they get together for a boys’ retreat: “no deals, no meals, no high heels,” which is to say snacks only, no business, and no women. Despite the “no deals” disclaimer, Souper plans to use the time together to pitch the other three on investing in his meditation app, which he continuously and defensively insists is a “total wellness superapp.” The patriarch of the group is Randall Garrett (a pleasantly salt-and-peppered Steve Carrell), who has recently received a cancer diagnosis that gives him five to fifteen years, but don’t let that make you overly sympathetic to him right out of the gate. The two remaining members, Venis “Ven” Parish (Cory Michael Smith) and Jeff Abredazi (Ramy Youssef), are currently at odds with one another, as Jeff’s currently riding a rising tide made out of dollar bills as algorithm software that he invested in is seeing a major return at the same time that Ven’s 4-million user social networking app has just released a (too) powerful AI that’s literally breaking the internet.
As the first order of business, we must establish that everyone here (with the possible exception of Jeff) is very, very stupid. They use a great deal of tech-based neologisms and throw around the names of philosophers like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Søren Kierkegaard as supposed sources for their personal philosophies (although Souper doesn’t seem to be able to graduate past Ayn Rand, given that his obsession with The Fountainhead influenced the name of the home for which the film is titled, with a copy sitting on a nightstand in one of the house’s many bedrooms). It’s clear from their feigned eloquence that they have, at best, secondhand knowledge of these schools of thought from pared-down excerpts that appear in the kind of pop-psych self-help/business fusion books that legions of “self-made men” are forever recommending to one another. They are society’s rotten creme which has risen to the top through lucky breaks, access to generational wealth, and stolen labor, and upon seeing themselves exalted to this position believe that they did so through some innate, unique specialness. We see this right off the bat when Randall, getting (at least) a second opinion that aligns with his previous doctors’ terminal diagnosis, insults his current oncologist’s intelligence directly to his face. Anger is just as normal a part of grief as denial is, but instead of raging against the heavens or the dying of the light, Randall defaults to personal degradation of someone who is, at a minimum, an order of magnitude more intelligent than himself. He’s so smart, you see? Intelligence makes money and since he has the most money, that makes him the most smartestest.
Perhaps the worst among the crew is Ven, who is a borderline psychopath and, worse, their Elon Musk equivalent. His social network Traam has the exact same user interface, has tasked himself with moving mankind toward the singularity, and has a relationship with his oddly-named son Sabre that is so lacking in paternal qualities that it verges on being inhuman. He also hints at his belief in Simulation Theory in a conversation with Randall in which they both express that they don’t believe that there are really eight million real people in the world, and his desperation to seem approachable and well-humored makes him more alien and unlikable. At one point, he attempts to smile like a normal person and ends up looking like Conrad Veidt in The Man Who Laughs. Most tellingly, he has no reaction to the fact that Traam’s new AI platform is causing the end of the world while these four assholes are snowmobiling up to a mountain peak together to write their net worth on their chests and howl into the sky. Randall and Souper are likewise largely unphased by the breakdown of society, at their metaphorical and geographical remove from the real-world consequences of what Ven and Traam have wrought. Social media becomes inundated with AI-generated perfect deepfakes of everything from messages from loved ones to literal fake news; a man with a grudge against his neighbor can stir up a lynch mob to carry out his personal grievances in half an hour by quickly creating a video of a newscast calling the man as a pedophile. Literal wars break out globally as computer generated images of invasions along borders prompt real responses from governments and militaries, and Ven celebrates as his bank account swells.
If there’s anyone here who has a speck of decency, it’s Jeff, as he’s rightfully horrified about the imminent downfall of nation states, while the others spitball the idea of a coup to establish their dominance in the world that is to come. Some of this is due to his anxiety about his girlfriend attending a sex party in one of the hot zones and his concern about her (a) survival and (b) fidelity, but he also has a moral framework that the others are completely lacking. He’s no saint, though, as his and Jeff’s falling out was over Jeff’s hiring of several of Ven’s programmers, who then went on to develop the exact content moderation algorithm that Ven needs, but for Jeff’s company instead. Selling the algorithm to Ven for Traam would at least prevent more new violence from breaking out, but he refuses to consider it, even as Rome (and D.C., and Buenos Aires, and Paris, and Melbourne …) burns. He does reach a point where he confesses to Randall that he’s thinking about turning the AI over to the real authorities so that they can try and put a cap on all this apocalyptic business, but this goes over poorly, and that’s when the film gets really interesting.
I wasn’t terribly impressed with Guy Maddin’s Rumours last year, and although that one was about G7 leaders rather than four men with more riches than the pharaohs of old, the “Powerful people converge in a remote location while the world is ending over every horizon” structure is quite similar. Whereas that one is both too gentle in its handling of its characters and too broad in their characterization, Mountainhead goes full-tilt into making the Brewsters complete—and very specific—pieces of shit so that the movie can play around with people’s fates since there’s no real reason to root for any of these people for most of the runtime. By the time three of them turn on the other, the plot kicks into high gear with slapstick taking over, and although it never loses the witty dialogue of the first half, the film definitely picks up in the second half. One of my viewing companions mentioned to me after the film that he didn’t really enjoy it until this mid-film shift, and I can’t say that I blame him. Most of the film’s humor comes from the counterpoint between the Brewsters’ unflappable internal sense of entitlement and self-adulation and the external reality that they are all sad, sick men whose superiority complexes and narcissism mask deep neuroses and fatal flaws. It’s easy to get lost in their constant use of business buzzwords, but this also means that the film lends itself to an easy rewatch to pick up on even more of the rapid-fire nonsense that the leads spit out. It’s so fast that even though I rarely stopped laughing for much of the runtime, the bons mot were coming so furiously that few of them managed to embed themselves. It’s a movie that could easily become overquoted in the future, but is solidly funny in the moment. My favorite was probably Randall’s insistence that “We’re not talking about killing [character], we’re talking about killing a non-fungible human being who is identical to [character],” which really speaks for itself.
