By
Jeffrey Blehar
Sunday,
March 12, 2023
It’s Oscar
night! Can you feel the alchemical buzz in the air, the warm fuzzy
glow America basks in when Hollywood’s stars come out to shine?
I
suppose that’s enough sarcasm for one piece. The well-known dropoff in interest
in the Academy Awards is a function of a multiple convergent phenomena: the
atomization of American consumer-entertainment habits, the increasingly
undisguised dull-witted omphaloskeptic leftist narcissism of Hollywood’s
elites, the Marvelization of big-budget filmmaking, and the ravages of Covid-19
on the theater industry. (And that’s just for starters!)
But
ratings might be up a bit this year, and not just because more people seemed to
be returning to movie theaters
beginning midway through 2022, as the nation shook off the Covid jitters. It’s because we have a
reasonably interesting slate of candidates this year. I can’t and won’t review
the Best Picture nominees here; Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote a far more
incisive review of The Banshees Of Inisherin than any I could offer; Armond White’s
savaging of Avatar: The Way Of Water would make anything I added feel like
beating a dead Na’vi. I did see All Quiet On The Western Front, and
strongly disliked it. (Watch Peter Jackson’s They Shall Not Grow Old instead
and muse upon how he gave up Tolkien schlock for a second life as an innovative
documentarian.) All I needed to see of Elvis was YouTube clips
of Tom Hanks brutally miscast as Col. Tom Parker in Baz Luhrmann’s typically
garish and belabored style to say “Nope.” (Also not a very good film, but a
fascinating misfire at least.)
Everything
Everywhere All At Once — the multi-dimensional science fiction time-travel saga about a
multigenerational Asian family, and yes the film is as “high concept” as that
description reads — is tipped by most observers to sweep the major categories
tonight: It’s expected to walk home with Best Picture, Best Director, Best
Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, and possibly Best Actress. I have
mixed feelings about this: The film is mediocre in my opinion — a great idea
let down by the hollow script and the undisciplined direction, its Oscar
prospects clearly carried aloft on a wave of good feelings about
“representation” — but I wouldn’t mind seeing Ke Huy Quan (forever “Data” and
“Short Round” to all us Eighties kids) walk away with a statue for a genuinely
rousing acting turn that came out of nowhere.
The best picture
of 2022, however, is unlikely to win. Because while Top Gun: Maverick has
been nominated for the award, it feels more like an Avatar-like sop
to popular sensibilities in a year where the Marvel Cinematic Universe soiled
its drawers. It is no such thing. Maverick is one of the more
unique beasts seen in Hollywood in recent years: an authentic action
blockbuster that conceals shocking thematic depths within its nominally
crowd-pleasing skin.
It seems
silly to worry about handing out spoilers to a film that has been out for well
over half a year, but I will say this. There are two ways to view Top
Gun: Maverick: (1) a thrillingly well-executed, crowd-pleasing film with
utterly insane aerial stuntwork and photography where the squad takes out the
bad guys and everything works out fine for Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell and
Team America; (2) a hauntingly moving tale of a man who has died with
unfinished moral business, working his way through purgatory and finding the
path for his soul to enter heaven. I am not joking about this.
Read
Sonny Bunch’s theory, expounded above. He is correct. There are far too many
little cues written into the script for this to be anything but an
intended possible interpretation (not one that is commanded,
but intentionally ambiguous). It is, needless to say, the interpretation that
makes every other little detail of the script — and particularly the improbable
ones — make much more sense, and hit that much harder. It does not have to be
your interpretation of the film, but it is mine and it makes Maverick the
best picture of the year.
Rewatching Maverick now,
and knowing what we do in retrospect about how it gave the
entire theatrical experience life when it was in danger of dying — Cruise fought to keep it off
streaming services and theater-exclusive using star leverage that he alone
wields — only adds a layer of poignancy to the film. This is Tom Cruise’s
meta-story as well: the “Eighties veteran who’s a little bit crazy, still the
best, has seen it all, and is fighting against algorithmic redundancy” is
mirrored perfectly by Cruise’s own journey as a star in Hollywood.
For once
it’s a tale that resonates because in this film you actually see him fighting
for something valuable: not even the plot of the film per se, but
for the grandeur of the blockbusters of his young adulthood, the entertainment
that reached and pleased millions, just as Maverick did.
Cruise is a difficult character to warm entirely to — everyone knows about
Scientology, and I for one have never forgotten his adventures atop Oprah’s couch — but his manifest love of the
classic Hollywood blockbusters that made people feel good is impossible not to
respect.
I hear
MSNBC is in an uproar
this morning because Top
Gun is apparently insidious propaganda for the U.S. Military
machine. We
know. We’ve known since 1986. Good.
No comments:
Post a Comment