Skip to main content

Fear is not real. The only place that fear can exist is in our thoughts of the future.


After Earth
(2013)

Big star vanity projects rarely seem to turn out well. Combine a major name with a director not renowned for his modesty and you have a recipe for a heftily out-of-touch piece of filmmaking. Given the critical mauling of After Earth, I’m a little surprised it hasn’t become the object of ridicule through obvious bad punnery; After Birth would be a suitably chastening retitling. But for all that this isn’t a terribly good film, it’s not terribly terrible either. Sure, the script suffers from holes you could pilot a spaceship through, the dialogue is frequently disastrous, the performances aren’t up to much and the special effects lack something special. But for all that, the movie is reasonably entertaining.


I put that mostly down to M Night Shyamalan. However lurching his fall from grace may have been over the last five or six years (since his vanity-massaging bomb Lady in the Water, so closer to seven), he remains a talented director. It’s his writing that has repeatedly let him down. The diminishing returns of his slow-burn directing style and plot-twist-first approach to writing resulted in his abandoning them altogether after The Village; even he had to recognise the tide was turning against him. But he did so in a backhanded way, pointedly criticising his critics in Lady in the Water. Which in turn was even more lambasted than The Village. He clawed back a commercial reprieve with The Happening, but it was his most pilloried picture yet. My reaction to it was not dissimilar to that of After Earth; I kind of enjoyed it despite itself. Despite Mark Wahlberg’s career-low, and despite the wonderful scene where our protagonists attempt to outrun the wind. Razzie nominations beckoned, as they no doubt will for After Earth (I suspect this time it’s a shoe-in to win a couple too). Since then, the director has been on something of a back foot. No one was especially kind about The Last Airbender, but it did reasonably well at the box office and as an adaptation (by the director, of course) he seemed to escape the kind of brickbats reserved for his own creations. Something of that is also at play with After Earth. He takes a screenplay credit (with The Book of Eli’s Gary Whitta) but is shielded from the worst of the blame through his star’s presiding involvement. It was Smith who came up with the story, Smith who conceived it as a vehicle for Smith Jr, and Smith who left his natural charm at home in his supporting turn.


Shyamalan probably wasn’t the best choice to give the script a good seeing to, of course. The man who came up with The Happening was unlikely to discern deficiencies of logic in the basic concept. When I reviewed Elysium, I omitted to mention After Earth amongst the wave of original summer sci-fi releases. After Earth eclipses that movie for conceptual incoherence, and it comes up very short when compared to the year’s other abandoned Earth picture, Oblivion.  The most obvious question, one that hits you in the face no matter how much of an easy ride you’re willing to give the picture in other departments, is how life on Earth can evolve to become hostile towards a species that no longer exists there. Even if the premise were intended to mock the concept of evolution (stranger things have happened), it’s the makers who end up with egg on their faces. Perhaps the creatures just collectively decided on an antagonistic disposition towards humankind. They’re obviously a discerning hive of transformed life, as the giant condor that starts out trying to kill young Jaiden decides to save him (ostensibly because Jaden fended off saber cats attempting to eat the condor’s young, but unless the condor has highly evolved faculties, all it’s going to understand is that its babies are dead and Smith Jr is standing over them).


It’s also a bit of a problem that, given the Earth is quarantined because it is so dangerous, it doesn’t really seem all that hostile. Jaden spends most of his journey in relative safety. Sure there are some savage leeches, some big birds and big baboons and big cats, it’s difficult to breathe and it gets cold at night, but the only really malign influence is the one they bring with them.  I also don’t think this being a kids’ film (albeit a fairly bloody one; wounded Will isn’t a nice sight) excuses the slipshod scenario that has been devised. The Earth was evacuated; so everyone left? Really? That just seems like nonsense. Indeed, I was expecting Jaden to run into some plot-twist descendants of those who opted to stay behind, rather than receiving comfort from a kindly condor.


As is de rigueur with future vision movies, an introductory sprawl was considered necessary to inform the viewer where we are and what is going on. This is delivered by Kitai Raige (one Jaden Smith), and the lacklustre vocal performance, combined with an extremely underpowered narrative, and design work, is a taster of what’s in store. Humanity has settled on Nova Prime but fallen foul of another race, which set the Ursas on them; creatures that smell fear. Kitai’s dad, Cypher Raige (I know, WTF?) discovers a method of being free from fear, called “ghosting”, through which the “blinded” Ursas can be beaten. So Cypher is perhaps the least subtle possible personification of the father who is impossible to live up to. It doesn’t help that Kitai blames himself for his sister’s death, and his dad blames him for it too. You get where all these clichés are going, right? That’s why they call them clichés. When their spaceship crashes on Earth (fans of the number 23 will note that the craft is prominently numbered H-230) and Cypher is incapacitated, Kitai must over come his fear (subtext is for wimps when such themes are so bluntly foregrounded), making a journey across hazardous terrain to activate a distress beacon.  And so, it will become a journey of discovery for the two Raiges.


The Ursas are your traditional oversized alien bugs, and testify to the lack of originality on display here. Straight out of Starship Troopers, there's even some reportage where we see Smith's Cypher Raige on a bug-stomping rampage; it desperately needed Paul Verhoeven to add some purposeful funnies (remember the censored news item in that movie, when the science division sticks a probe up a bug where the sun doesn’t shine?) This is a horrifically sombre movie (the cheerupwillsmith.com thing is entirely understandable), and its lack of self-awareness lends it to ridicule.


As far the "Fear is not real" message, who knows? Maybe Will has been spending too much time with his mate the Cruiser. Maybe the picture testifies to his much-rumoured sympathies towards Scientology (there are all sorts of offbeat theories concerning Smith’s beliefs and predilections, but isn’t that a malaise of most celebrities?) Certainly, it’s credentials as a flop bearing its message loud-and-proud beckon comparisons with John Travolta’s adaptation of the L. Ron Hubbard sci-fi Battlefield Earth. I’m not sure something as general as this fairly glib self-empowerment yarn lends itself to an entire agenda, however. One might draw parallels between the unchallenged position of the movie that martial discipline is a positive influence on the developing young mind (whatever disagreements crop up along the way) and the control structure of the Church of Big Ron, but the movie seems most vested in age-old notions of rites of passage and what it means to become a man. However corny and unpalatable, when Cypher rises to salute his son, so signalling that he is now deserving of ranger status, it’s about as traditional an arc as they come in story terms.


Nevertheless, there's something a little unsettling about putting your 14-year old son through intensive training in order to make him a tip-top physical specimen. It's not as if Will wasn't a scrawny streak of piss until the late-90s. It suggests scarily focussed parenting of the sort they make precautionary Lifetime movies about… There’s an obvious reading here that Will is Cypher Raige and he knows that young Jaden can never live up to his father’s legacy. One might suggest that Will’s absenteeism from the big screen, ostensibly for family reasons, is to give his son a push start; "You can never eclipse the old man, but if I indulge in enough vanity-transference perhaps I can manufacture a piece of stardom for you". It seems curiously thickheaded of Smith to assume that such blatant nepotism can end well. It would be all well and good if Jaden was the next Fresh Prince, and his career evolved naturally, but what Smith is doing is the worst kind of handicapping. In one swift move, audiences have learnt to resent his son.


The biggest problem is that Jaden is no chip off the old block in the charisma stakes (Kitai’s intuitive survival suit is infinitely more interesting than he is). I don’t think his performance is as bad as has been made out, certainly not so the affair became an unintentional comedy. And the part tailored for him isn’t exactly a showcase for anyone’s natural exuberance; with that in mind I'm willing to cut him some slack. The making of featurettes show a quick repartee with his old man, so maybe he's just really concentrating on being a mopey brat. Either way, he’s not helping the movie. But neither is dad, reining in everything that defines him as a star. Yes, he’s proved he can play a curmudgeon but no one is going to be congratulating him for it.


So it comes back to what works, and that’s entirely down to Shyamalan’s chops calling the shots. He keeps up the pace throughout a (relatively) lean running time, and doesn’t let the ropey effects, deadening dialogue and unbecoming performances kill the engine. I doubt that we’ll ever see him working entirely from another’s script, which is more the pity. As for Jaden, perhaps After Earth’s reception will have him thinking about his next move career-wise. After all, he’s 15. Time to make some big decisions. Not since Sofia Coppola has the hubris of a parent gone so punished. Maybe it’s worth him considering a career in directing.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.