Skip to main content

Time catches up with us all.

Predestination
(2014)

(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest fan of predestination paradox time travel yarns. I’m even less a fan of time travel tales requiring their protagonists to undertake key acts in order to fulfil the causal loop of a bootstrap paradox. Both require some pretty hefty pre-designated rules that don’t readily apply themselves to scrutiny or internal plausibility (breaking down to, “Because the writer says it’s so”). Since Predestination immerses itself in both these narrative conceits then, I really ought to have come out less than impressed. However, its eccentric mystery mostly flies for the sheer verve with which the Spierig brothers embrace the predestination theme of Robert A Heinlein’s 1958 short story All You Zombies; this isn’t just a case of a Terminator-style twist to top things off. Each event in their intricate screenplay rests against each successive event so as to infuse a Russian doll of paradoxes. More than that, though, Predestination pulls off a (for the most part) touching character study taking in themes of alienation, loneliness and determinism.


Indeed, it’s the opening 50 minutes, a sad tale told in 1970 by John (Sarah Snook) to Ethan Hawke’s time-travelling barman from 1985 that really seals the movie, rather than the convoluted series of reveals that comprise the last half. Hawke is employed by the Temporal Agency, on the trail of the Fizzle Bomber. We are told that, in a more elaborate version of Minority Report, We prevent crime before it happens”, but so far he has been unable to stop the Bomber killing 11,000 people in New York in 1975. This is as prelude, however. It’s evident John will be the primary suspect as Hawke wouldn’t be indulging his tale for so long as a mere red herring. As a result, the clues leading to the actual reveals and twists (the burnt face of Hawke’s former identity, the unseen suitor of Jane, John’s former identity) are slightly undermined by the filmmakers’ tendency to elaboration; by the time we are granted a montage sequence in the final minutes “explaining” what has long been evidenced, it suggests a lack of faith in the audience.


It’s fairly commendable to have a told tale occupy the bulk of a movie the way this does, though. One might argue it’s all about the pay off but, as elaborate as that is in its preposterous employment of time-travel theory, it’s the emotional sway of Snook’s phenomenally assured performance that raises the Spierigs’ movie another level. John is abandoned outside an orphanage as a baby Jane in 1945. She dreams of becoming an astronaut but is rejected by the Space Corps (the picture’s unheralded alt-history is one of its most winning aspects) when her intersex status is discovered. After an affair with a man who suddenly ups and leaves her, she gives birth to a child who is stolen from the nursery. On top of that, the caesarean operation leads to the removal of Jane’s ovaries and uterus, giving an enthusiastic doctor the chance to initiate an unsanctioned creation of a male urinary tract; Jane had no choice but to submit to a full gender reassignment. As John, he takes up writing true confession articles for a glossy magazine as The Unmarried Mother.


Even (or especially, depending on how one views the second half’s conceits) leaving out the crucial fateful interventions that dictate Jane/John’s life, Snook makes this narrated account utterly compelling. So much so, one is willing to forgive the slight leaps in motivation (it’s never so much portrayed as told that she hates the mysterious lover enough to kill him). Snook’s John has a touch of the DiCaprio in appearance, and she navigates Jane and John with such instinctively refined modulation that Hawke is really only required to show up and take notes.


So the second half of the picture reveals how all this falls into place. Hawke is, of course, John after facial reconstructive surgery. He follows a careful series of instructions to ensure his own life follows its predestined course. It’s John who is Jane’s mysterious lover (taken to 1963 to “murder” the lover, it is love at first sight when he meets Jane; forget about retroactive abortions, this takes the biscuit with its proto-narcissistic feats), it’s Hawke who snatches baby Jane from the nursery and delivers her to 1945. And it’s Hawke who pops to 1975 (“unauthorised”) to ensure John makes it to 1985 to have the surgery on his extensive burns. It’s also an older Hawke who turns out to be the Fizzle Bomber, his illicit jumps fostering the onset of psychosis and dementia.


The problem with all this is that it requires a rigorous rulebook to be even vaguely tenable. The paradox, of course, isn’t. It’s a loop with no prescribed beginning, bootstrap style, but taken to such an absurdist extreme that it’s nigh-on irresistible. Since such theories make no sense, Heinlein/the Spierigs go for broke with it: “The snake that eats its own tale, forever and ever”.


More than that, while there are significant sections of the picture where one or other of the protagonists is led in his/her course of action (either by John/Hawke or Noah Taylor’s Temporal Agency boss Mr Robertson), there are others that require this predestined loop to be tackled head-on. It appears the only way the rules here work is for everything to be preordained, and so John/Jane, and by extension the Temporal Agency have no say in what happens; they are cogs in a machine that must play out in the same cyclic manner. No one can actually change its course (as such, one must assume the newspaper headlines we see attesting to its mutability are either manufactured to manipulate or confabulations of the mind), so any fanciful notion of free will over the events is an illusion.


If there’s a problem with this approach (assuming you’re willing to run with it in the first place), it’s that it really needs to be challenged at some point. Time Crimes (curiously, both films utilised bandaged protagonists as a means of concealing the central twist) irritates because it rather ludicrously has its protagonist choose halfway through to undertake the acts inflicted upon him during the first half of the picture; the very awareness of his involvement would change the minutiae of those events, unless he became a “zombie” compelled by the timeline to enact his experiences just so.  


The Spierigs also fail to address this concern directly. They make a fist of it with John not recognising himself as the lover who spurned Jane, when he first sees himself in the mirror (part of him could only see the bastard who ruined her life), but the actual relationship with her requires more than falling head over heels to avoid questions of “Why does he go through with hurting herself?” and “Wouldn’t he want to tell her his true identity?” It probably wouldn’t have taken much to cover this; simply having Hawke attempt to shoot himself in the head but failing, after killing his older self would have addressed the point. But without it, the Spierigs must rely only on the philosophy of predestination rather than exploring the detail of how they see it working.


This isn’t a deal breaker, though, as underlying all this (much more so due to Snook than Hawke’s reliable but unremarkable showing) is a desperate, hopeless sense of the strictures of fate and yet, simultaneously, our own responsibility for our actions (in the context of the story Jane/John, cruelly, has “no one but her/himself to blame”). The All You Zombies title itself appears to comment on our automatic, conditioned responses to lives we only think we have a say in.


I enjoyed the Spierig’s previous (also Hawke starring) Daybreakers, although it didn’t wow me. That was relatively low budget, but this cost a fraction of that picture and looks great, thanks to Ben Nott’s cinematography and Matthew Putland’s design work. That the brothers are willing to take structural risks (the front-ended tale told) makes the formally much more familiar second half a slight comedown, but there’s still a satisfying exactness to following through with the premise. It just can’t quite pay off the emotional wallop of Snook confronting herself by having Hawke confront himself. If she isn’t on the road to the next big thing as a result of Predestination, she deserves to be.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

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.