Skip to main content

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon
(1985)

Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon. Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires).


Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg (Kick the Can). There, OAPs rediscover their inner children thanks to the arrival of “Magical Negro” Scatman Crowthers. Cocoon feels like a Twilight Zone plot stretched to movie length, but absent the kind of clear moral or final scene twist common to that series. Indeed, Howard and writer Tom Benedeck are (again) so damn nice they are unable to present any point of view on the choices facing this group. They retire from the action, regroup, and hope that merely raising the prospect of objections covers all bases (that’s thought-provoking entertainment, you see).


I can’t say I was overly enamoured by Cocoon even on first viewing. Its most arresting feature was Tahnee Welch’s buttocks (so revisiting it on a recent Film Four screening, I found it especially egregious that this scene had been edited for a more family friendly timeslot; retaining the cussing was just fine, though). For me, the science fiction trappings were its selling point rather than the crumbly old folk. The real problem with it then, and it’s just as clearly the case now, was that it doesn’t have a pulse. Added to that, its scenarios are demographically contrived; cast Steve Guttenberg (at this time he was inconceivably considered a box office draw thanks to the Police Academy series) to bring in the young folk. The sub-Strieber aliens and sub-Close Encounters effects will do the rest.


Kael had a point. Cocoon is not a terrible film but it’s a terribly bland one. It intentionally fumbles its dramatic beats and goes for easy emotion (almost) every time. It’s worse a crime than being straight-up empty-headed because it pays lip service to themes of aging, sickness and mortality while refusing to have a point of view on any of them. It’s very nearly the opposite of last year’s Amour in choosing an unremitting tone that leaves the viewer unstirred by anything other than fatigue.


Robert Zemeckis was originally attached to the film but Fox allegedly got cold feet; test screenings suggested that Romancing the Stone was going to flop (it didn’t). Whether he would have indulged the sentiment as much as Howard is debatable (or rather, whether the Zemeckis of the ‘80s would have done; the Polar Express director would have lapped it up), but anyone using Howard’s Splash as a guide might have though the same. This was the actor turned director’s fourth feature, but Splash (his previous picture) had established him with box office credentials.


His subsequent run has been one of the most consistent of any Hollywood director, no doubt partly due to a consistently middle-of-the-road, personality-free, presence. His one stylistic trait is that he brings nothing of himself to his films (a defining absence), aside from a pervading niceness. For a long time, it was even hard to summon up much criticism towards what he did (that would change decisively with The Grinch). Even gritty, edgy Ron isn’t really all that edgy (Ransom, The Missing). He doesn’t really feel it. The result is that he’s made some solid movies based on solid material (the aforementioned Splash and Ransom, Apollo 13) and some festering turkeys based on rancid scripts (A Beautiful Mind, The Da Vinci Code). At other times, it’s his lack of sensibility that renders half-formed pictures that desperately needed a push (The Paper, Edtv, Frost/Nixon).


Despite a general tone of indulgent veneration for the aged (one which equates with the Spielbergian nostalgia for childhood; both are somewhat blissful simplifications), Cocoon has a number of structural peculiarities that distinguish from its expected route. If this were an episode of The Twilight Zone, there would surely be a moral twist if the characters chose immortality; it would become clear that it was actually a curse and not a blessing at all. Instead, the movie mimics Close Encounters, where Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfus) leaves his family behind in favour of the great adventure. So too, Ben (Wilford Brimley) and Mary (Maureen Stapleton) opt to desert their daughter and grandchild. This is despite the pain it causes them; they reason that nature has dealt them a bad lot so why shouldn’t they. It’s a curiously selfish act, one where self-preservation takes precedence over the tug of familial bonds. As is par for the course with Howard, it is enough that they are shown to wrestle with the decision.


As if to reinforce this Bernie (Jack Gilford), the singular force of opposition who is shown throughout to condemn their quest for rejuvenation as going against nature, crumbles when his wife Rose (Herta Ware) expires. Carrying her to the life-giving pool, he discovers it is too late. Later, he meets the departing retirement home inmates and tells them that he is going to stay behind. He recovers his personal conviction but his lapse in judgement is enough to provide him (and by implication the audience) with sufficient understanding of why the others are doing what they are doing. It’s a cheap trick, really.


Indeed, we see little reason, other than self-indulgence and some dependable performances from veteran actors, to get behind these old duffers. Art (Don Ameche), Joe (Hume Cronyn) and Ben are introduced as likeable fellows who are stoic in the face of the tribulations borne of age (be it failing eyesight or cancer); they still get up to pranks with the lady folk, and like naughty school kids sneak into an unoccupied property to use its swimming pool. This is the kind of typically misty-eyed view of the elderly that afflicts most movies. They are undoubtedly another species, say the filmmakers, but if they are applied the traits of children or teenagers (rather than adults) perhaps they will be more relatable.


The effects of the water are instantaneous and pronounced. On their collective libidos. Each gets home and gives his other half a right good seeing too (in Joe’s case Jessica Tandy’s Alma, while Art pays a call on Gwen Verdon’s dancer Bess). The next day the ladies are glowing from the results of a pronounced rogering. That’s about as much insight as we’re granted; they are receptacles for their menfolk and have little in the way of independent personality (they follow like sheep when the off world trip is offered).


There’s an exception to this, and it’s the only point where the movie gets vaguely challenging or develops a dramatic backbone. Joe, his lustiness returned (and with the ability to act upon it) goes for a night out and picks up a waitress. Joe returns home, but Alma locks him out; she has seen this all before. The idea that there’s no wisdom involved in aging, that if there is any it’s more of a side effect of bodily decrepitude, is a (ahem) potent one. But it carries little ultimate weight; Alma forgives Joe when he proclaims that he’d stay and die with her rather than leave on his own. Howard and Benedek might have shown some balls if they’d followed this gambit, Alma had refused and then Joe up and left her. After all, that wouldn’t really be so different to Ben turning down the desperate pleas of his grandson to join them and not even saying goodbye to his daughter.


Walter: Put down that cocoon!

If the movie had actually dealt with the repercussions of such ideas it might have held some resonance, but Howard can’t even muster any condemnation for residents’ part in draining the pool of its properties. The retirees descend on the pool en masse and not only sap its vital forces but also start messing about with the cocoons. The vision is (again) one of people who never learn respect or decorum, no matter how many years pass. What was Benedek’s intent here? No lesson appears to be learned by the trio. Nor the aliens, it seems at first glance. We’ve already seen their leader Walter (Brian Dennehy) grant Ben permission to use the pool against his better judgement. Now, on discovering all their good work has been undone, and that one of their number is dead (the cocoons contain dormant aliens left behind 10 or 11,000 years ago when the aliens last had an outpost on Earth), Walter responds by offering the old buzzards a trip on his spaceship.


Is it because they showed him this strange human emotion called grief? He all-but says as much as a tear cascades down his cheek (he has never experience the pain and grief of death before). You see, it’s all right that the OAPs killed one of the aliens; it’s a valuable life lesson! More off-putting still is the all-hands-on-deck offer to help put the cocoons back where they were found. It seems that Walter was so fogged up with sadness he couldn’t even come up with that option himself. Thank goodness the old farts were there to prevent him from bringing his aliens home; if they hadn’t, they could then help to s things right back where they started (minus one husk of a pal of Walter’s) and get a trip into space to boot. See, selfishness pays as long as there’s a twinge of regret.  Put it like that Ben and co couldn’t have planned things better (it’s at this point the movie is serviced with its prerequisite third act chase sequence; God knows, it needed something to liven things up even if it is wholly predictable).


Walter: We’re Antareans. We come from the planet Anterea.

Why does Walter offer them all a place on his ship? Because there’s room? Because they have something to give as “teachers and students”? Because he’s so loftily superior he fails to see that they need to learn things in their own good time rather than be rewarded for misdeeds like spoilt children? Surely if he’s that advanced, he’d realise they have something to learn through accepting finite cycles? The aliens are wholly benevolent in Cocoon and, while they have something of the classic grey look, their appearance is significantly humanised. They give off a white (angelic) glow and hover in the air as if they are fairie kind. They also possess a sort of post-New Age ambivalence; they are creators of Atlantis but flippant enough to make quips about its fate (“sinking never occurred to me”). Unless I heard wrong their pronouncement that there were no people 11,000 years ago seems fishy, but their (literally) glowing credentials are emphasised by the esteem with which the dolphins hold them. It’s jolly enough to see Dennehy in a nice guy role, but the rest of the quartet makes no impression (Welch is very pretty, of course, but it’s not hard to figure out why she didn’t go on to greater success). There might have been potential, but you scupper that when you make them bland do-gooders (is it a coincidence that the following year Star Trek IV would fixate on aquatic life; Cocoon’s ecological aspect is paper thin, however).


Death is most definitely something to be feared in Cocoon. One might suggest Benedeck is offering the alien experience as a metaphor for religion. That, if you are a believer, you will be taken up to heaven (the mothership) and granted eternal life (“We’ll never be sick, we’ll never be older and we’ll never die”). It’s non-discriminatory afterlife to boot, since there is no vetting process and it doesn’t require that you are a good person (it must be a Christian heaven however, since Jewish Bernie remains behind).


The view of retirement home residents as dawdling well-meaning types who just need waking up to the idea that life is for the living (or some such) is fairly inoffensively patronising as these things go. Certainly, placed next to the kind of crowd-pleasing moments that focus groups adore. It’s every bit as funny, as we all know, to hear old people spouting crudities as it is infants (one of the opening lines attests that the water in the pool will “make your old ball sack shrivel up”). 


Then there are the all too predictable set ups (the pay-offs to the eye test, the cancer diagnosis where the tester/doctor is staggered to see the walking dead in tiptop shape). Old people just want to have fun, which is why an ear-destroying dose of terrible ‘80s electronica accompanies a montage of slow motion pool diving. This was the era for the music montage sequence, although it’s still a mainstay of the romcom, so later we’re treated to second portions as Don Ameche struts his stuff and – best of all! – breakdances. Obviously that was the scene in the trailer that got people into the cinemas. Old people. They’re so funny.


The performances are consistently agreeable, however. It’s difficult to conclude that Ameche won his Best Supporting Actor Oscar for anything other than being in his 70s and having a less-than-convincing stand-in for the breakdancing scene. But he’s likable. Cronyn and Tandy (a real life couple) do their best to inject pathos into their scenes when given half a chance. And Brimley, in a casting decision worthy of Clive Dunn, is 50 playing 20 years older with great conviction (it’s a part that must have led directly to the terribly twee TV series Our House with Shannen Doherty). 


JackNone of this is bad for America, I guess.

Guttenberg does his curly goofball act but remains just about inoffensive (strange to think his stardom was over pretty much by the time he hit 30). There’s an amusing moment where he’s seen reading The Complete Book of Extra-terrestrial Encounters, but his most memorable moment is his alien sex scene (“We show ourselves” explains Welch’s Kitty). It’s his reward for being a good honest Peeping Tom. I’m not sure why Jack doesn’t go with the aliens; perhaps he (understandably) finds the prospect of a bunch of crusties swinging from the chandeliers and shagging like there’s no tomorrow a disincentive. Perhaps Kitty just wasn’t that great.


Cocoon’s other Oscar was for Best Special Effects (it was two for two), beating out Back to the Future. The animatronic dolphins are very good, and the aliens themselves are perfectly acceptable in an over-familiar way. The alien spaceship is quite poor however; it possesses none of the majesty of the (on the surface similar looking) Close Encounters craft. James Horner’s score is awash with horrid twinkly music. His dramatic scores may repeat themselves (Star Trek II, Aliens) but at least they have some heft.  This one announces the need to succumb to wretched blubbing before anything hanky-sodden happens. Cinematographer Donald Peterman had a run of sea-themed movies during the ‘80s (Howard’s Splash and Star Trek IV included). Unfortunately for him (who knows, perhaps he thought he was retiring on a high) his last picture was the hopeless Howard adaptation of The Grinch.


Cocoon was a big hit in the summer of 1985; it finished the year sixth in the US (Howard’s second Top 10 hit in as many years). But it’s belated sequel Cocoon: The Return did next to no business three years later. The absence of Ron Howard can’t be the reason (he was off doing Willow, but most of the cast came back); it’s simply that this was a movie with novelty value alone to recommend it. No one was demanding a follow up, any more than for Sister Act 2 or City Slickers 2.  Spielberg meanwhile, no doubt cursing his luck, was quick to get in on the old people-and-aliens act; he secured Cronyn and Tandy for the (very) minor hit *batteries not included. Tandy’s twilight years renaissance peaked with her Oscar win for Driving Miss Daisy in 1990. 


Ron Howard makes average movies, so if you go into them with average expectations you usually won’t be disappointed. The only ones that exceed such mediocre shackles are ones that might have been great in the hands of another filmmaker. There was no such danger with Cocoon, which favours for simplistic pronouncements and Kael’s dreaded life-affirming outlook over the potential of its own moral conundrums.


**

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.