Skip to main content

And this computer thinks it can win... by killing the mother of its enemy. Killing him, in effect, before he's even conceived... a sort of retroactive abortion?

The Terminator
(1984)

(SPOILERS) The Terminator franchise is a mess of jumbled narratives, stop-start continuations, temporal entanglements and ill-conceived recasting, so at least this year’s latest entry looks as if it will be right at home. The original is only structurally tidy in terms of being relatively linear and unconfused about its objectives. Of course, that means that it needs to sweep a lot of internal logic under the carpet to work. But work it does in spite of that. This James Cameron at his leanest and hungriest, in stark contrast to the narrative bloat that has since (quite unnecessarily) consumed his storytelling.



Indeed, The Terminator is a relentless nightmare of a movie. It’s years since I revisited the picture; I don’t think I’d revisited either this or T2 in the years since the second and third sequels have come out, but watching them back-to-back it’s very evident how this series’ roots have as much, if not more, in common with the horror genre as they do action cinema (it has that in common with the original Mad Max). It’s a blend it would share with Aliens. It’s said Cameron switched to action after Terminator was enthusiastically received that way, rather than as horror, but that may be on the apocryphal side.


The predestination paradox at the heart of the plot is one that refuses to really satisfy, but at least it’s in the DNA of the picture. Some have sought to explain it by positing the idea that, for the events in Terminator to occur, there has to be an original timeline where – for some reason – a John Connor who isn’t the son of Kyle Reese sends Reese back in the first place. Consequently, the loop we see here is at least the second iteration of that. 


It’s a commendable try, but ignores essential simplicity with which Cameron devised the tale and the linear manner in which such plotlines tend to be constructed. When Reese whisks back in time minutes after Arnie, the filmmakers aren’t considering this in terms of the tricky logic that the already arrived T-800 should have all the time in the world as an advantage. T2 follows this schematic, as indeed do most time travel narratives. It’s simpler that way.


The causal loop is also there in Cameron’s deleted scenes. The reveal that the factory at the end belongs to Cyberdyne is picked up in T2, and is as crucial as the identity of John Connor’s dad. Harlon Ellison took a credit after claiming Cameron had used The Outer Limits episodes as inspiration. Whether or not he did (Cameron has claimed otherwise), the concept isn’t exactly exclusive to Ellison; Doctor Who’s Day of the Daleks had a similar predestination paradox 12 years earlier (albeit absent of any crucial rumpo), and 12 Monkeys would follow a such a course a decade later.


Thus we have a narrative where John Connor dutifully ensures Kyle Reese gets a photo of Sarah (the one taken at the end of the picture) so he can become devoted to her and volunteer to go back in time. T2 will forsake this. Ironically, since it is a much less satisfying movie: the predestination paradox is generally the stuff of twist short stories leaving the reader going “Oh, that’s clever”. The more one pokes at it, the less appealing the cleverness becomes (the most irksome example of this kind of thing is Time Crimes, where the protagonist’s precise re-enactment of events beggars belief). So it’s curious in this regard that a deleted scene from Terminator addresses the main thematic thread of T2; the unfixed future. Sarah suggests they go and destroy Cyberdyne and Reese replies that’s not his mission.


What Skynet thinks about all this is questionable (until Salvation, but even then…). They are presumably sending all these differently skilled Terminators back in a fairly short space of time (one of the most marked aspects of the first movie is that the resistance has won, so where these Skynet resources come from is curious in itself). Do they just hope to strike it lucky? Do they never come to realise the essentiality of their own involvement in the paradox? It’s one of the problems of a franchise like this that once one considers the many variables they might affect the same dogged focus becomes less and less convincing (How about sending a Terminator back to steal a nuke and wipe out LA, if Judgment Day is inevitable (Rise of the Machines)? Skynet would presumably still be developed eventually and it would at least sort out the Sarah Connor problem.)


The only time travel theory I find reconcilably satisfying is that of parallel timelines, since it can get on board with most anomalies and paradoxes. It’s something the series has generally avoided (although the TV series appears to entertain the idea), with only a singular but multiple expunged timelines. There’s certainly no room for it in the original. This is a series that has repeatedly stumbled with internal consistency; as Reese says “One possible future, from your point of view. I don’t know tech stuff”.


The theoretical side of the series is, however, spotlighted in one of my favourite scenes. Exposition-heavy scenes are often a pain in the arse, clumsily introduced and delivered. Here though, Reese’s interrogation by Earl Boen’s Dr Silberman serves to hold the picture’s rules under bright lights. Silberman’s a great character: lazy, bored, patronising (“A sort of, retroactive abortion”). It’s no wonder Cameron brought him back (it’s a particularly nice touch that he exits, engrossed in his pager, as Arnie enters the police station).


Combined with Lance Henrikson’s detective, cackling encouragingly whenever Silberman leads Reese on (“Ray guns?”; especially good is how his self-aggrandising anecdote about junkies on PCP is interrupted), the scene has a down-to-earth quality that lends weight to the picture’s verisimilitude. The limited budget also really helps the picture for the most part in this regard, with only the occasional effects-heavy moment falling down. I’d have liked them to find a way to get both Henrikson (off screen death) and Paul Winfield (badly wounded) back in the sequel, but getting Boen was particularly appropriate in terms of the outright disbelief of Reese’s tale told.


The actual genesis of Skynet picks up where WarGames left off the previous year; it was “built for SAG NORAD by Cyberdyne Systems”. If only Matthew Broderick had been on hand this would all have been satisfactorily sorted out by now.


This is a movie where it holds true that less is more. The more a franchise is unearthed and mined, the less mystery it holds.  Reese explaining, “The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy. But these are new” evokes a world of claustrophobic possibilities. And Cameron’s flashbacks to future Earth are a master class of economic storytelling that may have been incrementally exceeded budget wise in the sequels but aren’t actually more impressive. The guerrilla warfare and the infiltration by a Terminator are riveting and kinetic scenes.


It’s the little touches that appeal too. The T-800 doesn’t know Sarah’s full name so is gambolling around like a serial killer, offing anyone with the particular name he doesn’t like.


Arnie’s impassivity here isn’t actually all that impassive (Cameron purposefully reined that in) but he’s like a rock compared to the touchy-feely stuff that will follow. In T2, Cameron doesn’t really recapture the “dilation of time” as he calls it with the Terminator attacks. It’s a shame, as there’s a palpable, visceral terror to the dreamlike slow motion of the scenes in Tech Noir and the murder of other Connors and Sarah’s flatmate (it has to be said Matt – Rick Rossovich – the flatmate’s boyfriend actually gives as good as he gets before he goes down, much more so than any other human victim).


The celebrated Arnie moments are all pretty much as good as you remember. The opening with Bill Paxton’s and The X-Files’ Brian Thompson is perhaps a little less confident than later scenes, but the weapons purchase from the great Dick Miller is sheer class (“Phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range’). Arnie doesn’t actually don his trademark leather and shades until nearly the hour mark. The attack on the police station hasn’t been bettered, even if more polished set pieces have followed in T2. Then there’s his “possible response” to a guy asking if he’s got a dead cat in his apartment or what (“Fuck you asshole”).


Less satisfying is his retreat to do a few self-repairs, when he could surely have finished off Reese and Sarah at the scene of the car wreck (one asks similar questions about Reese wasting so many explosives trying to hit Arnie on a motorbike). The fake Arnie head and blue screen endoskeleton finale are less effective effects wise; although the warehouse clawed pursuit is up there in terms of tension.


Both Biehn and Hamilton acquit themselves well. Biehn can alternate between slightly unnerving (he was Lauren Bacall’s obsessive stalker in The Fan a couple of years before) and chipmunk innocence, which is about right. He has the right kind of build for someone surviving on scraps (unlike Jai Courtney; one valid complaint about the Terminators, and a consequence of casting Arnie, is that they’re not really the greatest of infiltration devices amid a malnourished human resistance), and doesn’t think twice about appropriating dirty smelly tramp trousers.


Hamilton’s transition from disbelief and terror to internal strength is more nuanced and impressive than the cuckoo’s nest of T2, although the line “You’re terminated fucker” is dreadfully cheesy. She falls victim to the inevitable failing of the heroine making stupid choices (calling mom) to fuel the advancement of the plot, but she’s believably a different person come the last scene.


It’s unsurprising Cameron hasn’t gone near overt sex scenes since this; their passionate embrace is rudimentary stuff, and one gets the impression Jimbo was very relieved to have it done and dusted. The love story is rather pressed into place and rudimentary, lacking the development that would forgive the way it strains for the hopelessly romantic (“I came across time for you Sarah”). Such elements have never been Cameron’s strong point (see both True Lies and Titanic as evidence). It’s probably just as well the take-it-or-leave-it Christ retelling is unintentional (saviour of humanity John Connor – JC – Jesus Christ) as Cameron would have undoubtedly overegged it.


There are a fair few elements in The Terminator that haven’t aged well – the haircuts, especially Sarah’s are dreadful, headbands are popular in 1984 and 2029, although the obsession with Walkmans is more endearing – but for the most part it stands up. I remembered the aforementioned Terminator effects to be more jarring that they are, if anything. I’ve never been that keen on Brad Fiedel’s score, however, truth be told. The ominous Terminator theme works, as does the main theme, but an awful lot else resembles discordant bashing about that is only so far from getting on the nerves.


What really vindicates the picture is that, in spite of a plot that should get demerits for lacking internal coherence, The Terminator succeeds by dint of conviction and verve. The spectre of the bomb, and the intimate scale of the elements lend the movie particular endurance; the inevitability of the apocalypse (“He said there’s a storm coming”) is balanced against personal peace with the long game. There’s little doubt that each reiteration since has picked at the scabs of logic here and exposed them, but that shouldn’t make the original any less of a compact and effective little gem. Cameron could learn from his early lack of self-indulge now. Perhaps after Avatar 4 he will take stock (no, I don’t think so either).



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism