musings on culture
I find it hard to evaluate a film object like Asteroid City.
For better and worse, Anderson makes movies for an audience of one, pushing his idiosyncrasies and preoccupations and grammar as far as he can. That also means his films feel increasingly insular, perhaps even adrift.
There’s an almost stubborn irrelevance about Anderson’s movies that may be a virtue or may be a damning flaw, and I can’t figure out which.
The first four installments of the Indiana Jones series, which has now been running for an astonishing 42 years, were the result of an accomplished quartet of collaborators: George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford, and John Williams.
Of that quartet, Lucas and Spielberg were undeniably the architects, and the Indy series was accordingly fashioned in their image. Raiders of the Lost Ark enabled Lucas and Spielberg to render their childhood fantasies with the scale and thrill that had only, until then, existed in their imagination. It was the adult fulfillment of a childhood dream. The shock of newfound bachelorhood gave birth to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, a manic, savage rollercoaster of a movie that was the product of a Lucas and Spielberg who were reeling from divorce and needed a creative outlet for their confused emotions. In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the series and its creators repented of excess and took an introspective turn, navigating family trauma with a lighthearted touch. By the time the duo were ready to film Kingdom, almost two decades later, they were older, wiser, slightly jaded family men, and the resulting film is a somewhat lackadaisical, largely comic adventure about growing old and discovering that you’re turning into your parents.
Still, the series couldn’t have possibly worked without Ford, whose iconic visage and effortless blend of comedy and gravitas made the character an enduring icon. Indeed, Ford seemed to love the character more than all others, never letting Lucas and Spielberg forget the character for too long. Indiana Jones was, after all, the role that propelled Ford into true mega-stardom.
In a way, each of the last three films, including the just-released Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, represent an attempt on the part of one of the core trio of Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford to send the character off on their own terms. Spielberg always envisioned Crusade as his last Indy adventure, and continues to cite it as the Indy film to which he has the strongest personal attachment. Kingdom was culmination of a vision Lucas had fought for since the early 90s; he was eager to see Indiana Jones graduate from the territory of classic adventure serials and find himself stranded in the territory of 1950s B-movie cinema (for Lucas, the character was always essentially genre pastiche). Then we have Dial, which Ford almost single-handedly willed into existence, stubbornly pushing ahead with it after Lucas and Spielberg stepped back into advisory roles.
Looking at Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s easy to see why Ford wanted another turn at bat. Kingdom gestures towards an Indiana Jones who is dealing with loss and the march of time, but it bounces along with detached amusement, purposefully undercutting the sense of danger or urgency that motivated prior films. Ford, whose visage and gesticulations were the focal point of all three prior adventures, is occasionally given new shades to play (one of Kingdom‘s more successful threads is the way this older Indy increasingly mimics his late father’s mannerisms), but Kingdom plays things so lightly and broadly that Ford has little to dig into as a performer.
When Spielberg stepped back from the director’s chair for what would become Dial of Destiny, director James Mangold was handpicked by Ford to rework the Spielberg-supervised scripts and bring the film to life. Mangold put Ford right back at the center.
Following an “old man confronting a new era” pitch, Dial loosely replays some of the narrative angles from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but where Kingdom softballed them, Dial leans into the melancholy, using a broken, lonely Indy as its starting point. This gives Ford something to bring to the character that he hadn’t brought before: a sense of fragility, mortality, and regret. Ford doesn’t waste the opportunity and leaves everything on the table. It’s a great performance that would probably hit harder if Dial hadn’t come at the end of a long run of “legacy sequels” that has given us scores of heroic icons filled with trauma and bitterness (including two such turns by Ford himself in The Force Awakens and Blade Runner 2049).
If we continue an autobiographical reading of the Indiana Jones series, we could see this crankier Dr. Jones as an analogue for Ford himself. Certainly, Jones’ contempt for his own time in Dial mirrors Ford’s own amusingly naked contempt and befuddlement at modern blockbuster culture. When, early in Dial, Dr. Jones looks at a kid dressed as an astronaut (to celebrate the moon landing), it might as well be Ford looking at a cosplayer at Comic Con. Dial of Destiny is Ford’s attempt to conjure up a Hollywood that gave birth to his own stardom. It’s a film about reliving the glories of the past and then, finally, bidding them farewell.
Dial of Destiny opens with a sequence set in 1944, where Ford, donning a CGI mask as his younger self, gleefully play-acts as Ford-in-his-prime, confronting Nazis in an old castle ala Last Crusade. All in all, it’s a fairly strong sequence, despite the uncanny valley aspects of abundant CGI and the murky nighttime setting (as with any modern blockbuster, the look of Dial of Destiny seems calibrated to look its best on 4K TVs, where detail pops in a way it doesn’t when projected on a screen). There’s a snappy rhythm to the hijinks that mostly eluded the more lethargic Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It’s an unabashed pastiche of a classic Indiana Jones film, and John Williams goes full-on in quoting his scores from Raiders and Crusade to ensure the feeling of deja vu hits home.
The leap forward to 1969 is purposefully jarring, yanking us out of the world of classic Indy adventures into a more urban world where Indy is a joyless, cranky dinosaur, a once-again bachelor on the verge of retirement. In the shadows, the Nazi threat has survived. The US government made a deal with the devil by relying on Nazi brainpower to enable it to win the space race. This resurgent Nazi cell, led by Mads Mikkelsen’s Voller, wishes to rewrite history and restore the Third Reich’s former glory (and this initiative has gathered some support in post-civil rights America, as indicated by the support of Voller’s white supremacist henchman).
The adventure kicks off when Indy’s goddaughter Helena, played with enthusiasm and panache by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, strolls into Indy’s life and brings him, briefly, into the realm of early 1970s paranoid thrillers, where he’s hunted by the CIA and framed for murder. This angle is conceptually clever (a nice extension of Lucas’ genre mix-and-match ethos), but it’s tragically underplayed. The simmering tensions of 1960s America are mostly window-dressing here. Dial of Destiny is too eager to shift to more classic Indy trappings as soon as it possibly can.
In this way, Dial of Destiny falls into the same trap that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did. Kingdom was at its most exciting when it leaned into the 1950s-era trappings, with the specter of the Red Scare coming to Indy’s doorstep. But it quickly dispensed with the 1950s trappings for more familiar (and less interesting) jungle- and tomb-trekking. Dial similarly brushes aside the late 1960s to venture into classic Indy territory.
That said, Dial‘s version of stereotypical Indy stuff is more fun and energetic than Kingdom‘s, and a lively sequence set in Tangiers at a black market for artifacts conjures up more than a little of that “classic Indy” magic in atmosphere and energy. What everyone there is after is the Antikythera, an Archimedes-authored mechanical wonder that can enable the owner to find fissures in time.
This mechanical device is Mangold’s invention (in a nod to the hand-off between Spielberg and Mangold, the opening of Dial tosses aside the core McGuffin of Spielberg’s drafts, the Lance of Longinus, and shifts focus to the Antikythera), and it’s a clever one that unites the puzzle-solving aspects of Crusade‘s grail quest with Kingdom‘s shift from supernatural intrigue to the territory of science fiction. The Antikythera’s payoff, which involves time travel gone wrong, is Dial‘s most interesting and eccentric sequence, enabling Indy to finally confront the history that has obsessed him for so long.
That gonzo climax is more conceptually bold than visually dazzling, and might make you wish someone with a little more showmanship was behind the camera. Mangold does a more than competent job helming Dial, but he’s clearly more comfortable when he’s directly focused on actors and their interactions than when he’s delivering big, effects-driven spectacle.
Outside of the opening 1944 teaser, Mangold’s set-pieces have a percussive forcefulness, but lack the outlandish wit and fluid pacing of Indy setpieces from years past (a vehicular chase through Tangiers, in particular, overstays its welcome). Still, holding Mangold to the standard of Spielberg seems unfair, and even Spielberg himself struggled to conjure up his gift for rollercoaster rhythms in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Overall, there’s a sense in which Dial of Destiny serves up both a bit too much and a bit too little when it comes to its antics, but what helps buoy the film through its languors is the natural chemistry between Ford and Waller-Bridge. If the film never quite solidifies their relationship as surrogate father and daughter to the extent one might wish, they’re a pleasant pair to watch on screen from the moment they first sit down for drinks together, and their characters’ affection for one another feels appropriately lived-in.
When Dial of Destiny finally draws to a close, it does so with a moment of tender, resonant nostalgia that suggests what we look for in the past is here in the present. After all, what is the present moment but the product of history? If Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is not a full-on return to the glory days of the series, it’s a more than respectable nod towards them. Farewell, Dr. Jones, and thanks for letting us tag along on so many adventures.
In his story “The Theologians,” Borges conceives of two theologians who were in such perfect ideological opposition that they were seen by God as the same person. As Borges writes in another story, “Story of the Warrior and the Captive Maiden,” the “obverse and reverse of this coin are, in the eyes of God, identical.”
Borges’ metaphysics are essentially mathematical. His stories are surreal, but their surrealism is not far from the surrealism inherent in quantum physics. His narratives follow rigorously constructed, methodical, if sometimes alien and unfathomable, logic. The logic of Borges’ fictional universes is the logic we see play out in the realm of Schrödinger’s cat, which is to say they are best understood as troubling paradoxes. People are just variables in the equations that describe these paradoxical truths.
Borges called Chesterton a “man of genius, a great prose writer, and a great poet,” and to read Chesterton’s Father Brown mysteries is to encounter Borges’ mirror image, for Chesterton’s own universe is similarly dominated by logical paradoxes. Such is the nature of the Catholic universe; the Medieval theologians were resolute in their belief in discernible order. Chesterton’s Catholicism sees the universe as an elaborate and intricate and comprehensive mathematical equation that will one day resolve with ecstatic epiphany.
Chesterton and Borges part ways in their perception of eternity. Chesterton thought God baffling (in The Man Who Was Thursday, he depicts God as something of a benevolent prankster masquerading as a villain), but nevertheless believed in the hope represented by the Christ of orthodox Christianity. In the divine person of Jesus Christ, the concretely human becomes eternal. To Chesterton, the journey from the finite to the infinite suggests joy unending and the ultimate dissolution of sorrow.
Borges has no such faith. His sense of the divine is cold and remote and unfamothable. His fiction and poetry again and again pulls at the threads of theological dogma, perhaps nowhere more concisely than in “Three Versions of Judas,” which postulates the existence of a theologian convinced that the Son of God was Judas (Jesus’ own antithesis). Only in Judas could God be “totally man,” and bear the weight of “reprobation and the Abyss.” Both humanness and divinity kneel to Borges’ Abyss, where infinity overwhelms all.
Chesterton is more directly and arrogantly polemical than Borges, and the more polemical Chesterton gets, the less convincing his intricate paradoxes are. Chesterton is so amused by his own (admittedly astonishing) aptitude for wit, and so smugly believes in the correctness of his own convictions, that he is often unable to sufficiently empathize with his opponents to see beyond himself. A marvelous showman, Chesterton creates elaborate narrative labyrinths with colorful conceits and thematic resolutions that, at their worst, smack of cheap sleight of hand. At their best, they resonate with the anxious euphoria of hopeful mystery; the dream that the inferno is but the shadow of a greater paradise.
Borges is less overt in his polemical posturing (at least in his fiction), but he takes a perverse pleasure in tarnishing visions of paradise. Borges, a self-styled prophet of eternity, proclaims the terrible and wonderous nature of cosmic paradoxes. For Borges, to consider eternity dramatically recontextualizes human experience, history, ideology, and society. Humans are but a part of the intricate cosmic riddle that extends out infinitely like a fractal. Borges, like Chesterton, sets up elaborate queues of bowling pins only so that he might knock them down and observe the way they clatter together to create new patterns, but Borges’ patterns only resolve into new enigmas.
For Borges, his stories’ concluding moments of anticlimactic non-resolution reverberate like cynical, if bitterweet, sighs that dissipate into a dark expanse. Chesteron’s fiction similarly bends towards anticlimax, but his moments of modest narrative resolution gestures towards a greater cosmic reconciliation that exists beyond the boundaries of his text (and the world).
Christopher Nolan’s cinematic worlds are spaces in which humanity only can surpass itself by taking a courageous leap into the void. His vision of transcendence is infused by a reverence for human fortitude, suggesting that human destiny has a reciprocal relationship to the fabric and trajectory of the universe. The deities that guide human progress are shadows of humanity’s future selves. In dreaming of becoming a greater version of itself, humanity achieves greatness. For Nolan, imagination has the power of prophecy.
Nolan’s time-bending spy adventure, Tenet, embodies this all to a tee, making it one of Nolan’s most complete expressions of this ideology. It is also his most dispassionate work, a film so fatalistic that it loses interest in human agency. If Cameron’s Terminator films posed that there was “no fate but what we make,” Nolan’s Tenet posits a more complicated determinism in which human beings are simultaneously authors of and the product of bidirectional causality. In Tenet, the future can shape the past. It’s an idea so abstract that it defies typical narrative momentum.
Nolan seems to want both the characters and the audience to feel somewhat adrift. Early on, a character explains that to manipulate causality that flows simultaneously backwards and forwards in time, you have to “feel” your way through it. Still, in its essential plot structure, Tenet is just a Mission: Impossible-style spy blockbuster that spirals off into existential territory, so if the territory is alien, then the journey itself is familiar.
The film’s convoluted setpieces and heists flow past the audience and characters in blunt-force disorientation. They’re mostly diverting up until the confusing and limp climax, which stages a military battle across two planes of time. This intriguing idea seeks to reinvent the large-scale James Bond climaxes of yore with a psychedelic spin, but Nolan sketches it out without much visual imagination. This big showdown opts for prosaic “wartime” chaos and aesthetic austerity when it should be going for something more jaw-dropping.
More effective is the climax’s dramatic emphasis on the power of a parent-child bond. As in Interstellar, parental love shapes the universe. But what truly propels Tenet is not love, or even its sibling, revenge, but a kind of determined passivity. To accept one’s subservience to the universe is the ultimate self-actualization.
The lead character is simply known as the Protagonist: a human abstraction. In the role, John David Washington leans into this characterization, giving us a chilly, distant, analytical hero. His cool-as-ice delivery and confident swagger does have a unique appeal (even if Nolan’s attempt at James Bond-style banter is largely robotic; wit has never been Nolan’s strong suit).
The movie’s secondary protagonist, played by the unearthly Elizabeth Debicki, is similarly frosty, though she is permitted to manifest more interior emotion and psychology. Her character’s narrative self-actualization gives the movie its fulcrum; others exist to enable it and bear witness.
Only Robert Pattinson seems to be having fun, dressed up like a dandyish expat while dryly smirking through each scene with a detached amusement that calls to mind the way Alec Guinness might have approached similar material. He should be commended for finding some exuberance in the film’s portentous fatalism.
The same, unfortunately, can’t be said for composer Ludwig Göransson, whose deafening, percussive sonic landscape picks up from where Hand Zimmer’s collaborations with Nolan left off, but lack Zimmer’s talent for mingling experimental sonic textures with more emotionally resonant melodic and harmonic expressions. Nolan needs a composer who can embrace his aesthetics and themes while also expanding the film’s emotional palette.
In cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, though, Nolan has found an ideal collaborator. Hoyte van Hoytema brings a style of composition to Nolan’s filmmaking that feels as structural as Nolan’s approach to storytelling. Tenet feels enigmatically architectural in a way that the Escher-inspired Inception never did.
For all of its failings, the mysteries Tenet attempts to express in its images of monolithic stone and industrial machinery achieve a measure of fascination. Take him or leave him, Nolan remains a singular authorial voice, and Tenet is something no other filmmaker would have made. That, in and of itself, is a kind of artistic accomplishment.
Joan Crawford was almost too powerful a force to be contained by the boundaries of the film frame. Few films serve her quite as well as Johnny Guitar, which allows Crawford to dart between contemptuous courage and existential fragility within the space of seconds.
After a brief prelude, Johnny Guitar unfolds as a tense and invigorating one-room stageplay, expertly and precisely staged by director Nicholas Ray as a ballet of wills and longings and violence (both latent and expressed). A suicidal energy cuts through each interaction. Every character here stands poised on the brink of combustion.
That’s an excellent arena for Crawford, in particular, whose Vienna has clawed her way up from the streets and hitched her dreams to the westward expansion of the railroad. She made her way through the seedy underbelly of the old America and now dreams of building a new one.
Sterling Hayden, a master of wry delivery, appears in the title role as Vienna’s former lover. His Johnny, a self-destructive gunslinger who has come to the end of his tether after a history of wanton bloodshed, represents both the culmination of Vienna’s dreams and the threat of its collapse into the wreckage of the past. They carry their wounds with them, and each might find their own demise in their acquiescence to the other.
This ballet, always in danger of transforming into a death-dance, plays out against the backdrop of a frontier turf war. This war between old and new Americas eventually breaks out from Vienna’s would-be enclave, the casino she’s built beside the future path of the railroad, into the unforgiving terrain of that frontier.
As with nearly all of the great Westerns things come together in a tense shootout. If victory remains elusive for any of the film’s characters, the next best thing is remaining alive. If Vienna cannot build the new America, she might survive the pangs of its birth.
Unfairly dismissed as a film of minor pleasures, The Trouble with Harry is subtle and humble, but it’s also one of Alfred Hitchcock’s most assured, coherent pictures, and stands as his most full-bodied statement on the paradoxes of human nature.
Set in beatific, beautiful Vermont, Harry is a light comedy about how small-town charm can coexist with indifference towards violence. The charming and twisted opening scene, which stages the birth of a winter romance over a corpse (with one character casually stepping over the body as they go to make their exit) sets the tone.
Here, Hitchcock lavishes his attention on his characters’ idiosyncrasies (he may have famously referred to actors as cattle, but Hitchcock does love to revel in actorly mannerism as a cinematic effect unto itself). Every one of its protagonists are simultaneously sweet and mercenary: self-deprecating and generous and casually cruel and complicit in crime.
The policeman is cast as the story’s antagonist (Hitchcock claimed to fear policemen above everything). He’s as uncompassionate and arrogant and unlikable as our complicit band of small-town maybe-murderers are charming. It’s the band of small-town, accidental crooks who have our sympathy. Therein lies the joke. Murder only troubles us when we dislike the murderers.
The woefully misbegotten and mostly tedious Alien Resurrection has only one truly vivid, uncanny, destabilizing moment, and that is when Ellen Ripley (now resurrected as an alien-human hybrid clone after her sacrificial death at the end of Alien 3) encounters a room full of unsuccessful attempts at Ripley’s resurrection.
Thus Ripley’s sacrificial death led not to some dreamy heaven, but to another layer of the nightmare. This hall of half-human, half-alien horrors extend neatly from the biomechanical nightmares of the original Alien, and this moment of confrontation dramatizes what the prior trilogy of films had already signified: the alien eclipsed all of Ripley’s hopes and dreams, and now she has finally been remade in its terrifying image.
Neither director Jeunet (whose stylized, comic sensibilities jar with the material) nor the screenwriter, Whedon, properly capitalize on this profoundly unsettling turn for Ripley, which is a shame: it offered fertile ground for a series that had seemingly come full circle.
Weaver, constrained by the film, still finds the character within. She was and is, for all intents and purposes, the heart of the series because she can so uniquely express the bitter fortitude that can only be born in the furnace of great trauma. The first film may have been a haunted house movie driven by a sense of the ethereality of outer space, but both Aliens and Alien 3 found their momentum in Weaver’s face and the profound depths it suggests. No actress has ever recoiled in horror with more conviction.
The Coens make better “termite” than “white elephant” pictures (to borrow Manny Farber’s useful, if nevertheless overworn and somewhat dubious, dichotomy). The Big Lebowski is the kind of towering work that achieves greatness through its own effortless oddball-ness, the sort that can only emerges when an artist (or, in this case, artists) are motivated primarily by their own idiosyncratic amusement.
A Gen X Long Goodbye, this hazy, somewhat wistful take on American idiocy and confusion by way of the Bush Sr. era of politics, offers a farcical take on Chandler in which America just doesn’t make sense, man. (Burn After Reading is its acid-tongued cousin, a spiritual successor linked to the next phase of the Bush political dynasty.)
Its facetious, but oddly resonant, thesis is that in stupid, cruel, criminal times, there needs to be a constant, something to stabilize the chaos: someone with minimal ambition who will kick back and bowl and drink a White Russian.
The brilliance of Lebowski lies less in what it says than in how it carries itself, which is with the same unimpeachable casual exuberance and weirdness that runs through Bridges’ central performance. It’s the equivalent of a night out at your favorite neighborhood dive bar (which is to say a night spent reveling while in the eye of the American storm).
No cinematic Chandler adaptation has successfully channeled the same psychic forces that propel his Marlowe novels (in my estimation, the Mitchum-starring Farewell My Lovely comes closest, even if it gives us Chandler by way of Nathanael West). The Hawks adaptation of The Big Sleep keeps the narrative outlines, but it’s a Hollywood glamour vehicle (even if it has a seedy side).
Bogart excelled at conveying self-destructive psychology, so it’s a shame that Marlowe’s essential cynical loserdom isn’t in evidence. Here, he’s in charismatic heartthrob mode, a kind of James Bond P.I. Still, let’s not complain too much; Bogart is a joy to watch, especially when he shares the screen with Bacall.
Bacall comes from some other planet, a young dynamo that’s all desire and contempt and fortitude. If Gene Tierney was the ultimate self-destructive femme fatale, a woman who would inevitably combust in spectacular fashion, Bacall’s film noir women would survive everyone (including the men they loved).
King Hu’s great wuxia feature, A Touch of Zen, may be cinema’s greatest expression of human spirituality. Certainly, no other film has so perfectly embodied the concept of holiness with such force and such effortlessness.
Hu presents transcendence as both tangible and ineffable, all the while suggesting that it is profoundly effortless: to live a holy life is to live the most natural and sensible life.
“The sea of suffering is boundless. Arise and come ashore.”
Caves of Altamira 