Skip to main content

These are bird strikes, sparrows to be precise. That’s the way it is, guys.


Thirteen Days
(2000)

Kevin Costner’s desire to return to the era that proved so fruitful nearly a decade earlier with JFK was understandable, and the Cuban Missile Crisis is a subject replete with so many opportunities for drama and tension that it would take some very clumsy hands to mess it up. It’s ironic, then, that the least effective aspect of the film is Costner himself.

Which is not to say that he gives a poor performance. This is a typical Costner role, one that echoes the courageous family man type audiences have already seen several times (in the likes of The Untouchables and JFK). Admittedly, the star was widely taken to task for his dodgy Boston accent but I can’t say it particularly distracted me (aside from Costner occasionally looking as if he is chewing marbles).

The real problem is really that his character, Special Assistant to the President Kenny O’Donnell is uncomfortably shoehorned into a central role. During intensive discussions between JFK and Bobby Kennedy (marvellously played by Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp respectively), debating the best course of action to take, it frequently appears that there’s this eavesdropper present who is getting far more attention and input than he would warrant. Using O’Donnell as an audience surrogate is understandable, and there are times when Costner blends into the background, but it’s a problem that his he is the recognisable star trying to wrestle attention from the two character actors who are the real centre of attention and decision making. We shouldn’t be waiting on what O’Donnell says next, but the film’s point of view asks us to do that.

Costner reunites with the above-average journeyman director Roger Donaldson; they had worked together thirteen years earlier on the excellent political thriller No Way Out. Donaldson’s approach is an unshowy one, concentrating on the character and story rather than visual flourish. Notably his one flashy choice here doesn’t work very well; dipping into black and white for “on the record” moments. It looks like someone has turned the colour down on an impulse, rather than adding a sense of period authenticity. The special effects aren’t so special either, with the CGI planes never looking very real.

Where the film succeeds is fortunately in the most important aspect; the creation of a palpable sense of fear and escalation. Every time it appears that progress has been made, something else occurs to set back efforts. The impetus from the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to strike punitively first, most likely leading to war, with only the Kennedys there to hold back the tide; JFK is viewed by them as being weak, but rightly he has no stomach for a nuclear conflict. In a highly effective tirade against an ignorant naval commander, Dylan Baker’s Robert McNamara explains that the manoeuvring the President is engaged in is a whole new language that the military are either willfully blind to or are too ignorant to understand.

At each stage there is opposition from some quarter, be it setting up a blockade rather than striking Cuba, unsanctioned activities that could be seen as provocative (nuclear and missile testing, sending a U2 into Soviet airspace, elevating the threat level to Defcon 2, firing flares as a warning to a tanker that has run the blockade), the concern over Khrushchev’s second message and whether it means the deal offered in the first is voided, the instructions to pilots that they are not to be shot down (and not to report any firing upon their planes). When a plane is destroyed by a missile events have reached the point where something like this was inevitable; the only surprising part is that the crisis did not spiral into all-out war.

If there’s a problem with the depiction here, it’s that the lines being drawn are a little too black-and-white. JFK virtually has a halo permanently fixed over his head, so beatific is he. The filmmakers avoid any mention of Operation Moongoose (the US’s campaign designed to topple Castro, which likely fuelled the decision to place Soviet nuclear missiles there), which was coordinated by RFK. JFK agonises over his every move as if he resides on a higher plane of moral conscience than everyone else. Adlai Stevenson (a superb turn from Michael Fairman) redeems himself from being written off as a Soviet appeaser (he suggested offering the withdrawal of US missiles in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the threat from Cuba) when he takes the hardline with a Soviet representative at a crucial meeting; but he is there basically to show that the President was taking a shrewd middle-line and did have a pair of balls.

It’s also unfortunate that the dialogue is at times rather literal-minded. That it doesn’t seem more so is down to the talents of Culp and Greenwood. The pep talks given by O’Donnell occasionally border on the trite (his car journey with RFK towards the end of the film is particularly guilty of this) and a growing tendency towards sentimentalisation threatens to scupper the earlier good work during the final stages. Kevin breaks down and cries on the stairs, and caps it off with a facile family breakfast conversation.

David Self’s career as a screenwriter has been fairly patchy (work includes the remakes of The Haunting, The Wolfman and Robocop) so perhaps we’re fortunate that he steers the narrative so firmly for the most part. Despite its flaws, this remains a smart political thriller with an impeccable supporting cast.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…