Skip to main content

What does it matter if there's nothing left at all?

Ender's Game
(2013)

(MINOR SPOILERS) Ender’s Game arrives on screen awash with controversy, although little of it relates to the film itself. No doubt there are fans of the book dissatisfied with yet another Hollywood adaptation scooping up and spitting out a mangled version of their beloved text. The negative press mostly relates to author Orson Scott Card’s rampant homophobia, and has subsequently overwhelmed any conversation regarding the movie. I’ll try not to do likewise. So here’s my verdict on Ender’s Game, the movie; it’s… well, it’s okay.


The only Orson Scott Card I've read is his novelisation of The Abyss, a long time ago back when I was genuinely a fan of James Cameron and lapped up anything connected to his films. Apparently Ender’s Game represented a challenge of "unfilmable" proportions (often a pronouncement on tomes subsequently turned into average movies), because so much of it is predicated on the point of view of Ender and so exists in his head. That, and its paedo-friendly content.


First published in 1985, the novel concerns mankind’s war with an insectoid species (known as Buggers there, and Formics in the film). In order to defeat the aliens once and for all, the military takes an unusual tack; they enlist children. It seems that their supple young minds give them a tactical advantage against the enemy. One of these whippersnappers is Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield). He shows such aptitude and anticipation of his opponents’ behaviour that Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) really thinks he could be “the one” (I don’t know to what extent Card’s novel uses this kind of messianic language, but there’s been such an overkill of “chosen” heroes in recent years that they should have given the theme a wide berth). Much of the film concerns the ups-and-downs of Ender’s boot camp training, as the juniors are prepared for eventual confrontation with the real enemy; this takes the form of zero-gravity war games and computer battle simulations.


The kids have been aged-up by a few years from the novel. There were probably a slew of good reasons for this, but the most valid one (finding young actors who could deliver consistently strong performances) achieves variable results. Butterfield's not bad; he’s certainly better here than in Hugo (when he’d have been about the age of the novel’s Ender). Perhaps fortunately for him, the script is so perfunctory that he can't really be blamed for failing to emote the anger, conflict, and all-important empathy Ender feels towards his foes. It quickly becomes clear that the movie is paying lip service to the themes and plot progressions of the source material. As a result it devolves into a series of recognisable tropes; triumph over bullying; conflict with superiors; persevering and rising to leadership through tests. Depictions of cadet training will forever look to the Full Metal Jacket standard and come up short; this isn’t even close (Nonso Anozie’s no bullshit Sergeant Dap is a big cuddly podgeball compared to R Lee Ermy).


Here’s the thing; there are some reasonably strong ideas in the movie, but they're ironed out into "and then this happens" moments. Ender’s rise from outcast to leader is all-too easy and, when his refusal to fight any more is laughably resolved by Graff’s acquiescence to his demand for the return of email privileges, it starts to resemble an adolescent Top Gun, unable to meet the material’s aspirations towards depth.


Of which, Ender’s Game seems to be actively scoring points in Philosophy Class. There’s a debate over the justification of the utilitarian position that appears to be central. The military takes the view that the sacrifices (of the kids’ childhoods, of the alien species) are valid because the outcome is the preservation of humankind. Ender, through his pervasive empathy (but also his capacity for violence; it is his “love” for his enemy that allows him to defeat his enemy) arrives at a different position; he does not contend that the actions of his superiors are flat-out wrong (a deontological approach, dealing in moral absolutes), rather that their reasons are. By the close of the picture, he appears to display the traits of virtue ethics (where one’s inner values make one moral, and one’s actions are an extension of character rather than the defining factor of one’s morality).  While the horribly trite final lines (something about seeing if he can broker peace as effectively as he can wage war) might suggest a morally absolute approach, they really reflect only the engagement of Ender’s now virtuous state. That these themes tend translate in a pedestrian or platitudinous manner may be either a consequence of the compression of the novel or simply because Card didn’t have much going on in the first place.


Nevertheless, this is consistently watchable. Perversely, that’s in part because of all the tried-and-tested clichés it should really have been avoiding. It’s hard to go too far wrong with the "He's the One" blueprint (well, you’d think). The basic training and strategy games are effectively realised; director (and screenplay writer) Gavin Hood does a tremendous job making the Zero G fights visually coherent and engaging. The bullyboys are appropriately hissable (Moises Arias deserves particular credit for his loathsome performance) and the reaction of the adults, although entirely predictable (Harrison keeps shouting about the highest scores ever, Viola Davis waffles concerns for the poor boy’s soul), adds a spur to the proceedings. Later, the simulations descend into any-movie CGI spaceships and explosions. These are indistinct in design and uninspired in execution. It also seems that video games of the future have graphics up to the standard of that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie now more than a decade old.


The result of this aggressively formulaic approach is the feeling that the "violence is bad" message (or rather, the “violence is bad under certain circumstances but we’re a bit vague and ineffectual about what they are” message) is just window-dressing for how cool it is to blow shit up. Which may help to explain why this is suggested reading for the US Marines. It’s curious that Ender’s comes out the same year as After Earth, another filming apparently extolling the virtues of a “hard love” upbringing as a means for the boy to become a better man. Perhaps this is all a warm-up to reintroducing the draft.


Amongst the mish-mash of subtexts are some rather clumsy parallels between the conflict with the Formics (is insectoid the only sort of alien these days?) and the US’s policy towards the Middle East. Underlining this, Ender makes pals with a Muslim boy who greets him on each occasion with "As-salamu alaykum". Is there a nascent suggestion here that well-intentioned Ender (the US) will lead all nationalities, races and cultures (his squadron, the aliens) to a glorious and better future? Maybe the producers were just extra-alert to the furore surrounding Card and tried to make the film as contrastingly inclusive as possible. Such sops do nothing to make it distinctive in its own right, though. Ender even makes friends with a ginger.


Harrison Ford is present and just about correct. He isn't quite asleep, which is something, but it's increasingly distracting how his nose appears to be spreading steadily to the right. There's also a scene where a bit of food on his chin disappears one shot later. It’s easy to be distracted when post-‘80s Harrison is on the screen. Ben Kingsley can now retire content in the knowledge that there are no nationalities or ethnic groups left for him to play.


There’s certainly no reason not to make controversial material into something very different, or to steer clear of adapting a dodgy author’s work unless that work itself is intrinsically loathsome. Even then, Paul Verhoeven retooled Robert Heinlein’s pro-fascist novel Starship Troopers into a superb satire of the same. The problem with Ender’s Game is that it isn’t really much of anything. Gavin Hood is forgiven for all things X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which were probably only partly his fault) but this picture’s strongest ideas and themes are ultimately anaesthetised.


***

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…

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 am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

You look like an angry lizard!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
(SPOILERS) I can quite see a Queen fan begrudging this latest musical biopic for failing to adhere to the facts of their illustrious career – but then, what biopic does steer a straight and true course? – making it ironic that they're the main fuel for Bohemian Rhapsody's box office success. Most other criticisms – and they're legitimate, on the whole – fall away in the face of a hugely charismatic star turn from Rami Malek as the band's frontman. He's the difference between a standard-issue, episodic, join-the-dots narrative and one that occasionally touches greatness, and most importantly, carries emotional heft.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.