Skip to main content

He thinks you can fix the future.

Tomorrowland: A World Beyond
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Tomorrowland is a muddle (and the UK stating-the-bleeding-obvious subtitle doesn’t help matters any). The trailers, as cryptic as they were, suggested a clear, clean rush of positivity and awe at an alternate and parallel world to out own, while the makers advanced sound bites positing the question, ”Where did all our hope go?” As a starting point, this kernel holds some merit; an express contrast with the overpowering trend towards dystopian and post-apocalyptic visions. Unfortunately, Tomorrowland’s realisation is limp and thematically confused. Brad Bird and Damon Lindelof’s “course correction” towards inspiration is confounded by the same kind of problematic thinking that troubled the final act of Joss Whedon’s Avengers: Age of Ultron. There, the express desire to counterpoint Man of Steel’s wanton disregard for human life turned the picture into Avengers Save: People. Here, Bird and Lindelof are left flailing as soon as they attempt to grapple with their concept; how do you depict a dramatically persuasive utopia?


This is surely at the root of the structural problems plaguing Tomorrowland. As I’m sure everyone knows (everyone who has heard of the film, rather the many fewer who have actually opted to see it), the title derives from the Disney theme park attraction. That Tomorrowland conjures a bright and shining future age, one of humanity-improving scientific advances and all-round pipping good progress (the picture mentions Jules Verne, whose ideas were an inspiration to the themed land). Even Disney suits have recognised the gap between Walt’s  ‘50s vision and the current state of the attraction, with their wish not to allow it to become “Yesterdayland”. It’s something Bird and Lindelof (and Jeff Jenson, the Entertainment Weekly journalist and Lost fan theorist whose enthusiasm for that ultimately botched show led to a collaboration for this conceptually botched movie) never really grasp.


Their Tomorrowland is a dream of jetpacks, rockets, and sleek, smooth architecture. The latter aspect owes more to The Shape of Things to Come than any ‘50s sci-fi. The overly literal premise holds that Tomorrowland withered on the vine as humanity became less engaged by what was possible and more consumed with what wasn’t, as defined by the spectre of the atomic bomb and mutually assured destruction. This is a little too neat and unrefined, basically comes down to “Thinking makes it so” in a spoon-fed, but simultaneously garbled in delivery, way.


Evidence of Lindelof and Bird’s laboured dedication to a nostalgic version of the future can be found in the unchanging nature of the world itself. Young Frank (Thomas Robinson) arrives in 1964, yet it doesn’t appear to have advanced at all any in 50 years since. Even if 30 of those years were crushed under the disillusion caused by his depressing invention (the Monitor, which through the magic of tachyonics conjures images of a blighted future Earth), there should have been some developments before he was chucked out (in the ‘80s?)


The Monitor itself is a bit of a fudge, just as Tomorrowland is a bit of a fudge. Its entire population is seemingly limited to Hugh Laurie’s baddie Nix. We have to fill in the blanks for both because it’s based on art direction rather than substance (Ryan Matsunaga, who has read prequel novel Before Tomorrowland, valiantly attempts to make sense of it all here). Accordingly, we’re asked to swallow some pretty big becauses that rather invert the straightforward message. Nix’s reaction to the Monitor is so overwhelming, he banishes Frank/Frank is so depressed he gets himself banished. Does Nix also singularly take it upon himself to forsake humanity? At what point does he learn the machine is also transmitting a signal that causes people to accept their negative fates? Did the (much depleted in 2015, it seems, but why and how we do not know) denizens of Tomorrowland have nothing to say about this? Are they just a bunch of highly intelligent, cerebral sheep, bowing to the will of their dictator? Do they become as resigned as Frank or as disillusioned as Nix? We don’t know, because we don’t see any of them.


The conceit of the Monitor serves to let humanity off the hook for its capacity for self-destruction in an ungainly fashion. We learn the intention was to create an environment free from the impediments of capitalism and greed, the destructive forces that inhibit our potential. Inherent in this is the idea that the Earth-bound billions are on a fast track to their own demise. Would it be any different if Frank hadn’t invented the Monitor? Lindelof and Bird treat their big idea very literally; thinking about destruction ensures destruction, but they leave gaping holes where narrative coherence should be.  


Tomorrowland itself derives from negative thinking; secrecy and elitism, and the novel establishes that is located on a different planet (eh?!) discovered through a hole torn in the fabric of space-time by an atom bomb. Essentially, the city is built on the wages of destructive science (this is also a very glaring rip-off of Season Six of Lost, and Plus Ultra sounds rather similar to the DHARMA Initiative). Apparently the rulers intended to reveal its splendour to the inhabitants of Earth when all was ready (some 30 years after its 1899 inception). Thus there is a hierarchical and judgemental system in place even before Nix decides mankind just isn’t worth the effort (couldn’t they at least leak their evident medical advances to a sickness ravaged globe?) Can it be any surprise that he then fulfils his remit and becomes a full-blown despot?


The animated short describing the genesis of Tomorrowland references, as the reason for keeping its existence a secret, the danger of the “misuse of knowledge ungoverned by conscience”, but stretched to more than a century this reads like an excuse (as does the novel’s Nazi sabotage). The screenplay struggles to justify the convenience of the land being separate and distinct, in a manner that bizarrely puts it at odds with the thunderingly crude morality play of Elysium.


It’s no wonder then that, as with a number of points in the picture, it is easy to misread the makers’ intentions. There has been a lot of discussion regarding Brad Bird’s possible (purely historic?) objectivist sympathies, previously in relation to readings of The Incredibles. Tomorrowland has stirred up this hornet’s nest once again, and it’s easy to see why. In terms of the rule of Tomorrowland, and the comments above pertaining to its failings, it’s easy to read a criticism of the exclusive system on the parts of Bird and Lindelof; tenuously positive motives feed into a land as corrupt and negatively disposed as any on Earth. Running with that, however, leads to the suggestion that any utopian vision is inherently doomed. It’s almost as if Bird and Lindelof cannot bring themselves to follow through with their initial concept; it’s just too out there to be credible.


This may be why we stagger uncertainly to an ending that embraces the facile optimism absent elsewhere, but it doesn’t explain how it leaves the inequalities of the system intact. Yes, we get the idea; now, with the just and benign leadership of Frank (don’t forget, he’s the one who caused all this, with his rotten invention!) and Casey (Britt Robertson), the gates are open to new dreamers once more. They materialise as one in fields of ripe corn, as if dropped into an advert for British Airways, or Coca Cola, or one of those banks “bringing everyone together”. It’s quite insipid. Yet there is no mention of corrective measures to bring this message to humanity at large. 


Was it simply enough for Casey to use her magic powers to avert global Armageddon (the imagery and concept are lifts from The Day the Earth Stood Still and more recently The Abyss), through blowing some shit up? Will people suddenly be positive enough to avert catastrophe, even though they weren’t before the Monitor was invented? As far as we can tell, Nix’s exclusive regime is still intact; can we assume Frank and Casey will be continually repositioning the date when mankind may benefit from its glorious inventions and innovations?


The figures used for Plus Ultra’s genesis are curious ones; Gustave Eiffel, Verne, and Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. The theft of Tesla’s ideas by Edison is referenced, but why would one who succeeded through pursuing the profit motive be put on the same level as Tesla, whom the conspiracy theories suggest had funding withdrawn because he came up with the ultimate threat to capitalism, free energy? It points to an essential flaw at the heart of the picture; without challenging the basis of the system Tomorrowland has sidestepped, any innovations will be subject to the same kind of misrule.


The picture only bothers to mention the proposed sharing of knowledge in a couple of lines, so it’s hardly surprising Lindelof et al haven’t devised a means for this to occur. Other than, “think positive”. After all, it works for the transparently manufactured hope of the space race, which Bird boorishly hearkens to when Casey attempts to prevent the dismantling of the NASA launch pad at Cape Canaveral.


The power of one person’s optimism is no less horribly twee for being proudly and fiercely anti-cynical. It’s on a par with short-circuiting a logical computer brain through confronting it with imperfect human emotions. Like the retro-future, this sort of thing can’t get a free pass without serious refitting. At very least, one needs the accompanying anaesthetic of world building; Casey is a chosen one like The Matrix’s Neo, but his ability to reshape his environment came as part of an illusory world. Casey’s gift is more nebulous; she simply has more good vibrations than everyone else, and probably a higher midichlorian count. Whatever it is, she, and others invited to Tomorrowland, are special ones, better than the rest of us.


This takes us back to the misconceived opening section of the movie. Rote banter introduces us to Frank presenting the negative and Casey interrupting with the positive, addressing camera. Here lies the theme of the picture, right at the front, but it leads to mangled delivery because message is leading story by the nose and then ends up missing the wood for the trees. We see Frank arriving in Tomorrowland as a boy, so the reveal of what it is takes place immediately. The writers have no choice because they have boxed themselves in; we can’t see its splendour later because it has fallen from grace.


Well, they could have done, because then we get a virtual repeat in which Casey takes a virtual tour of its heyday. This decision completely flounders in narrative terms. Accompanied by a terminally John Williams-derivative score from Michael Giacchino (there was a time I would have laughed at the idea he could deliver anything ropey, but this evidences otherwise), Casey discovers the sheer vibrancy of the place. It’s a dull and redundant episode, and profoundly hinders the picture from moving forward. We already know what we need to know. Young Frank (Robinson is very good, managing somehow to convey an air of a young Clooney) has experienced a much more compelling introduction, with rocket pack, and there’s little mystery about who Athena must be (Raffey Cassidy, also good but not quite as assured with all the nuanced robot business asked of her). Yes, she might be preternaturally eternally youthful, just as Nix has halted his aging, rather than a robot, but we nevertheless know what her function is.


As a result, the pace of the first 40 minutes of the picture is flattened. It isn’t until Casey visits the memorabilia store that Bird manages to recover the reins, and then he’s only in control until the trio reach Tomorrowland. Once there, no one really seems to know what to do. There has to be some action, and some fighting, but it’s all a bit listless. As much of a comedown as the state of disrepair we find, There’s a brief pick up through Clooney finally having another adult to talk to, but Laurie’s role is reductively one-note and expositional. He ends up doing a Charlize Theron in Prometheus, getting his leg trapped under a falling column, and is then further insulted with a scrappy and low rent exit, exclaiming “Oh, bollocks” moments before he is crushed.


Another problematic area is the relationship between 50-something Frank and eternally 12 Athena. It wouldn’t have taken much to realign the relationship into something that didn’t border on the creepy, but Lindelof and Bird are unable to extract themselves from a mess of their own making. There’s almost a perverseness to such choices; they must surely have been aware of the dangers of possible misinterpretation. Frank remains stuck in the unforgiving mode of a childhood love spurned. His younger self didn’t know Athena was a robot and fell for her. Frank really needed – at least in this one respect – to be a well-balanced guy and have moved on; he could have other issues with her, due to her representing an ethically dubious system (and this is how it plays when they are first reunited), but being hung up for all that time, replaying home movies of their time together? Presumably he was nursing these wounds when he left Tomorrowland as an adult. There’s a flashback to him going but, aside from that, one gets the emotional sense he's picking up from where he was as a kid. Then there’s Athena’s deathbed confession to Frank that his feelings were reciprocated. It's really no wonder this is element is getting picked up on.


But let’s be positive and what is positive in the movie. Claudio Miranda’s cinematography is gorgeous, bold and crisp and bright, as one would expect from the guy who lensed Oblivion, Life of Pi and TRON Legacy. Walter Murch and Craig Wood they make the most of it when have a good scene to get their teeth into; the mid-section of the picture is a breeze, and shows off the kind of pace and sense of adventure that is closest to the ‘80s Amblin pictures this (perhaps foolishly) seeks to evoke. From the fight in the memorabilia store, to the escape from Frank’s house, to the trip to the Eiffel Tower, the second act is imbued with a sense of energy and possibilities the picture so lacks elsewhere.


Bird and Lindelof appear to have made a conscious decision to pass to move on from the recent-ish trend for kick-ass female protagonists. Instead, they have kick-ass action child ones. So we get Frank’s jetpack escapades in the first scene, and then Athena disarming and generally dismembering robots throughout. This partially works as novelty, but is limited to the extent that it is passive spectacle rather than involving action (a little like whirling dervish Yoda in the Star Wars prequels, only better choreographed). 


The straightforward evil bots (rictus-grinning Men in Black, led by Matthew MacCaull) are more engaging in this regard, although there’s more than a whiff of The World’s End to the functional carnage inflicted upon them. Their wilful destructiveness of all that stands in their way supports the inherent fallibility of any utopian vision. One wonders, if Tomorrowland had been a sequel-supporting hit, if Lindelof would have revisited the Frank-led land and found flaws in that too.


Clooney does the disgruntled old guy thing appealingly, hiding his charm beneath a gruff exterior; on that level, he’s a no-brainer of appealing casting. Robertson is also very good, and she and Clooney strike up a good odd couple rapport or squabbling. She delivers the irrepressible spirit of Casey perfectly. Really, the only faults with the depictions of Frank and Casey lie in material that short changes the actors (in the service of the lumbering thematic content, Casey is required to put her hand up in class and ask “Can we fix it?” as if she’s a precious five-year-old).


Where does this leave the picture’s leading creative lights? Well, Lindelof has lucked out on the big screen, suffering brickbats for pretty much everything (save some World War Z rewriting) he has so much as sniffed at. This will likely confirm the wisdom of his return to TV, at least until The Leftovers is cancelled. Bird’s work on the movie is flawless, so I doubt it will it stop people banging his door down, just make it less likely he can get his own projects (such as 1906) off the ground for the foreseeable. So that means the inspirationally challenged The Incredibles 2. And maybe Disney will finally snag him for a Star Wars movie.


Maybe the moral of Tomorrowland is, inspiration and positivity cannot be taught. Disapproving comparisons have been made with Mad Max: Fury Road, expressing the irony that Rockatansky’s wasteland accelerates to a much more inspiring finish than Tomorrowland’s bountiful but awkwardly uncertain trajectory. Bird and Lindelof would probably have been on safer ground looking towards what made those Amblin movies positive in tone. It wasn’t through envisaging an impossible horizon; rather it was a result of affirmative characterisation and plot resolution. By making the theme as transparent as Tomorrowland’s the message is rendered trite. Worse, to borrow the picture’s lumpen analogy, not only is the wolf is being fed something indigestible, but Lindelof and Bird don’t even seem sure whether they are feeding the right one or the wrong one.





Comments

  1. Thomas Edison did not infringe on Tesla's intellectual property. The supposed rivalry between them was grossly exaggerated by pop 'historians.' The two had a more professional, respectful relationship than the popular narrative would suggest. I would like to suggest some articles for further investigation:

    http://amasci.com/tesla/teslafaq.html

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/05/18/nikola-tesla-wasnt-god-and-thomas-edison-wasnt-the-devil/#38061e641a21

    http://factmyth.com/factoids/edison-and-tesla-were-enemies/

    http://edison.rutgers.edu/tesla.htm

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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…

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.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

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.

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…

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

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

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…

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.