Skip to main content

No disassemble!

Short Circuit
(1986)

Strange as it now may seem, and certainly few were talking about it in hushed tones at the time, John Badham was one of the more reliable directors of the 1980s. Blue Thunder, War Games, Short Circuit, Stakeout and into the first digit of the ‘90s with Bird on a Wire, he made a string of successful but forgettable movies (War Games is actually pretty good, though) that put the lie to the idea the talent behind Saturday Night Fever had a career ripe with potential ahead of him. Badham made a career out of journeyman gigs, and you could imagine at least a couple of his ‘80s features bearing a “Steven Spielberg presents” production banner. Unfortunately, his sensibility seemed better suited to the straight thriller than the action comedies that became his bread and butter. Short Circuit arrives in the Spielberg-initiated, post-E.T. and post-Gremlins (and post-R2D2 if it comes to that) wave of cute creatures with whacky voices who get up to all sorts of hi-jinks. It’s relatively harmless (with one notable exception) and utterly pedestrian.


There’s so little effort on display, you wonder if Badham took the job out of desperation. Bills to pay, American Flyers had flopped (pre Kevin Costner’s big break). The premise – a robot made for military operations is invested with consciousness and goes AWOL – could work as merrily for a straight thriller as a kids’ comedy. With the right guiding hand, and this might have been a lot of fun. Puppeteer Tim Blaney (who also voiced Frank the Pug in Men in Black) invests Johnny Five (not actually so-called until the final scene) with an innocent goofiness that is quite endearing. At least at first. 



The constant barrage of TV and movie mimicry becomes tiresome after a while, in a manner I’m sure a Joe Dante or John Landis would have avoided. They also might have infused the whole with a genuine air of zest and anarchy, seizing on the more corruptive elements and taking pot shots at its half-arsed moral position. It’s difficult not compare Number Five’s movie riffing with the TV-obsessed aliens in Dante’s Explorers from the previous year. And the idea of corporations weaponising innovations (or toys) is much more playfully and satirically handled in Dante’s Small Soldiers a decade later (Short Circuit is rigorously devoid of depth). Cute as Number Five is, with his demands for “Input” and thesaurus-like digressions on subject matter (when he breaks Stephanie Speck’s china he notes “Numerous fragments. Some large. Some small”), he also physically resembles a benign metallic version of Brundlefly from David Cronenberg’s The Fly remake (out the same year).


No one is trying to convince us that Five or his company have any real-world hardiness. I guess they do at least look like they’re period-accurate cartoonishly robotic, the laser weaponry aside, but their precise function never really flies. Named SAINT (Strategic Artificially Intelligent Nuclear Transport), they represent the “most sophisticated robot on planet Earth”, adapted to parachute behind enemy lines and take a 25 megaton bomb right up main street Moscow, thus “ensuring peace”. I’m sure there are some parallels to drone technology to be had for whoever helms the remake (in development for years now), and they’ll be a subtle as a brick, but its difficult to believe a machine as conspicuous and clumsy as SAINT would pose any serious capability of infiltrating enemy territory (the design comes courtesy of Blade Runner’s Syd Mead). Which, of course, is Soviet, this being the mid-‘80s.


Also, this being the ‘80s, the star (Johnny Five aside) is Steve Guttenberg. His success and ubiquity during this decade still seem like some kind of mystifying palsy that gripped the period and can be used in case for why the period was so devoid of culture, class or anything to wax nostalgic about (except, of course, plenty has been found, as with any era). I guess his appeal was a certain naughty schoolboy cheekiness; certainly, that’s how he found fame as Mahoney in the Police Academy series (further evidence in the case of consigning the decade to the dustbin). Diner aside, you’d be hard-pressed to find a decent Guttenberg movie, and he’s incapable of bring anything more than lightweight frizz to any picture (The Bedroom Window for example). Here he plays a shit-hot scientist and the designer of Johnny Five, Newton Crosby. Newton wears polka dot shirts and would rather tap out tunes on a Casio keyboard than hobnob with the big military types. He’s a genius who is both witty, laidback and shy of girls. What are the odds?


This being the ‘80s, concerns of feeding the military death machine take an understandable back seat to cashing a pay cheque (chucklesome Steve tells us how “Originally I had non-military purposes in mind. I designed it as a marital aid”, attempting to break out those Mahoney cahonies) His principles only extend as far as the raising of a fey objection; he certainly wouldn’t act on them. Newton also refuses to believe in the possibility that Number Five is, indeed alive. Until his mind is opened to the truth by hippy flake Stephanie (Ally Sheedy in a brief, post-Breakfast Club flirtation with standard Hollywood romantic interest roles; here she’s third fiddle to Johnny and Guttenberg – no wonder she didn’t keep playing the fame game). 



The scene where Five analyses the constituent parts of a liquid Newton has pressed between the folds of a piece of paper, and then describes what it looks like to him, is a neat encapsulation of what the writers are getting at, but its played and staged with zero magic. Perhaps there’s some subtext here about the power of imagination and limits of scientific insight, but it’s all very one-note. Frankenstein’s Monster gets name-checked, and there may be a suggestion of a moral imperative not borne from divine law (asked who told Five it was wrong to kill, Johnny replies “I told me”), which may be the filmmakers wanting to have their cake and eat it (if they thought that much about it at all). It’s also unfortunate that Johnny seals the deal with regard to his humanity by laughing at a racist joke Newton tells (one might argue it’s okay for Steve to tell it as he’s Jewish, and if his character is Jewish then perhaps his robot is too).


Stephanie keeps a house full of stray animals (including a skunk) and drives around in a Snack Shack van selling natural foods. This is the level the movie is working at. Because she’s seen E.T. she thinks Five must be an alien (“I knew it. I knew they’d pick me”). She’s the ‘60s free spirit reconstituted as a writer’s cliché (in fairness to scripters S.S. Wilson and Brent Maddock, they hit almost all the right notes with Tremors a few years later, so maybe this was much wittier on the page) but she still listens to atrocious movie tie-in songs at her place. The actual generation, as typified by Austin Pendleton (always good nasal value) are now sell-outs making big bucks. It’s just as well Newton has 40 acres he can run off to live on, eh? Forsake the rat race for the dream of 20 years before (minus the changing the world bit).


For all the ineffectuality of Short Circuit, there’s still an element that raises eyebrows. Fisher Stevens plays Ben Jabituya, a comedy Indian the likes of which hadn’t been seen since Peter Sellers starred in The Party (well, maybe Spike Milligan went there on TV). This amounts to a hilarious accent and even more hilarious mangling of phrases (“I am sick of wearing the dress in this family”, “I am standing here beside myself”, “Her pants are blazing for you” and an inevitable “Oh my goodness gracious”). On top of that, Ben is something of a PG-rated sex pest. I don’t think you can really use arguments along the lines of “No one knew better” at this late stage. To compound this, with Sheedy and Guttenberg passing on the sequel (if Steve said no, there must really have been issues with it) it was left to Stevens to step up to leading human duties. Besides the political incorrectness, there are other occasional inappropriate asides for the adults. An elderly lady, seeing the advance of a military goons, admonishes her husband “I hope you took the grass out of the glove compartment”, while one has to assume the spirit of Saturn 3 is being invoked when, in reply to a reporter asking if Five tried to molest Stephanie (just why would that be an instant consideration?) she replies “No, he’s not that kind of robot”.


Short Circuit is also something of a Police Academy reunion (like it needed one), as G.W. Bailey (Harris) shows up as the belligerent bad guy. His presence compounds the idea that this has the pungent whiff of a quickie TV-movie, made in a weekend with locations from every other episode of The A-Team. The staging is clumsy throughout, and David Shire’s score is so of its time it hurts. There’s a “that’ll do” quality to the effects too, including Five imitating a grasshopper. Badham was no doubt limited by the lack of versatility of his star(s), but he could have summoned some inventiveness surely? It’s rubbing salt in one’s own wounded creativity that Johnny and Stephanie dance to a clip form Saturday Night Fever; Badham’s been reduced to pre-formed studio product. There are also numerous Three Stooges references, so I’m sure this is high on Mel Gibson’s list of favourite movies.


There’s no reason not to remake Short Circuit (other than Wall E having already aped the design and adorability). It’s a fairly crummy movie, but one with an easily identifiable selling point. However, the idea of a boy from a broken home making friends with Johnny Five stinks to high heaven. The director of Alvin and the Chipmunks is attached. By the sound of it, Short Circuit Re-Fused will be lucky to approach even the mediocre quality of the original.








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.

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.

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 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.