Skip to main content

There's going to be a paradox if you don't make those planes crash.

Millennium
(1989)

(SPOILERS) Michael Anderson picked up the directorial reins of time travel tale Millennium after it had gone through numerous hands, and screenwriter John Varley’s perseverance and ultimate chagrin, over the course of a decade of development hell. The finished feature, equipped with C-list leads (Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd were hardly dynamite at the beginning of the ‘80s let alone the close, so one assumes untold swathes of names turned it down first), came out at the end of August 1989 in the US, the traditional late summer dumping ground for unloved projects, where it failed to even dent the Top 10. It’s a picture with an arresting premise, one that front-ends its apparent literacy regarding the theoretical complexities of time travel. Which makes it all the more disappointing that it proceeds to fall apart so resoundingly as it proceeds and progressively ignores all its groundwork.


Watching Millennium, one can’t help but think of some of the more extreme conspiracy theories regarding Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 (the ones regarding it actually being actually spirited away by mysterious forces). More specifically, the abduction, replacement of passengers’ bodies and subsequent return is redolent of the theory that Flight 370 was “repackaged” and ended up as Flight MH17 downed in the Ukraine. Despite the dubious merits of the movie as a whole, the premise of Millennium remains a consistently evocative one; when Lost first arrived this was a movie that instantly came to mind for many (well, those who had seen it), and one could easily imagine it reworked for an episode of Fringe, or indeed forming the basis of an entirely new JJ Abrams TV show.


I’m sure John Varley would be pleased to see it done right. He commented, "I ended up writing it six times. There were four different directors, and each time a new director came in I went over the whole thing with him and rewrote it. Each new director had his own ideas, and sometimes you'd gain something from that, but each time something's always lost in the process, so that by the time it went in front of the cameras, a lot of the vision was lost."


The parts of the finished movie Varley thought were okay were pretty much those involving the present day material with Kristofferson’s crash investigator Bill Smith as he learns of the anomalies surrounding the crashed Boeing 747. The flight recorder reveals the flight engineer exclaiming of the passengers “They’re dead! All of them! They’re burned up!before the crash. And then there are the watches that tell the time in reverse. And what is physicist Dr Arnold Mayer (Daniel J Travanti) doing at the site and why is he asking all these strange questions, “looking for the inexplicable”?


Varely didn’t like the future material, relating to those responsible for the anomalies (It didn't really hang together. A lot of it didn't make sense."). He’s right, partly. Millennium only really falls apart when it starts to reveal its inner workings, but there’s good elements mixed in with this mess of a future too.


Since Varley, who furnished the screenplay, washes his hands of the movie’s problems, one ends up looking to Michael Anderson, and it’s fairly easy to believe the blame rests with him. Charitably, he was a journeyman, with scores for The Dambusters and Around the World in 80 Days (in that it was garlanded with Best Picture, rather than because it was a particularly good movie) and a run of disappointments in the ‘70s including Orca, Logan’s Run (I know, it has its stalwart defenders, mostly Jenny Agutter fans) and Doc Savage: Man of Bronze (I wish Shane Black would hurry up and get started on his remake). Anderson’s work on Millennium is serviceable but bland, which rather reflects his choice of leads. The most curious aspect is that a picture with such an arresting idea behind it should be end up so profoundly mediocre.


For example, there’s inventiveness on display in the narrative structure, such that the first time Louise Baltimore (Ladd) meets Smith is the second time he has met her. Yet their relationship is as utterly devoid of spark or chemistry as you’d expect from Kristofferson and Ladd (and the picture devotes far too much time to this aspect, rather than getting to grips with the main thrust of the story). Then there’s Mayer’s impressively persuasive lecture on why “It’s the possibility of paradoxes that make most people rule out time travel by human beings”. But not movie studios making movies that are never able to coherently get to grips with these paradoxes, it seems.


The future society we see is falling apart (a millennium away, hence Louise’s enormously corny “You’re the best thing in a thousand years, Bill”), where humanity has succumbed to invasive pollution, increasing incapacity and an inability to reproduce. Some of the imagery is quite striking (the spokesperson for the ruling Council resembles a piece of plastic surgery out of Gilliam’s Brazil, while Sherman the Robot has a tantalisingly flesh and blood aspect), even if the future never looks anything other than a single set, but the whys and wherefores are, as Varley suggests, mangled and borderline incoherent. Defenders will claim all the answers are in Varley’s short story and novelisation, but that doesn’t help the picture as a stand-alone entity.


It’s a mystery how this society comes up with the significant resources to produce the bodies used in the crash (they can “make the bodies but not souls” but their science rather selectively cannot solve problems such as fertility or the ravaged environment), and the whole subject is brushed aside almost with embarrassment. Perhaps no one wanted to address the ethical implications of their actions in a PG movie. And, while I quite like the audacity of their mid-air hijacks, it’s difficult to conceive that the problems they encounter on the 1963 and 1989 flights wouldn’t have occurred pretty much every time out. Paradoxes just will happen, and the notion that they could ever localise their intrusions has a butterfly effect-like implausibility.


Then there’s the grand plan; “I steal people from the past to send them somewhere else to start over”. Which is pretty vague. Just like the “We can only go back to a specific moment once and then never again” (is this because of potential paradoxes, or is it a built in Blinovitch Limitation Effect – see Doctor Who’s Day of the Daleks for a purpose-built rule restricting the causal disruption of time travel; elements of the passengers’ abduction also resemble the 1967 story The Faceless Ones, but with reverse intent), robot Sherman tells Louise “None of us can go. Only you”. Which breaks down to a self-imposed rule, by the sound of it (“There is no place for me where you are going”).


Why not devote themselves to improving their genetic lot and absconding there? They clearly capable of up-keeping (“pampering”) Cheryl and her colleagues so they can fulfil missions (that she has to chug away in 1989 in order to maintain her complex hydrocarbons leads one to wonder how she will survive in a presumably clean environment; the movie’s funniest moment has her throw a cigarette away, landing on who knows whom, in a crowded restaurant when Bill notes “I’ve never seen anyone eat and smoke at the same time”). And as for the revelation that she is pregnant, despite it not being possible, well, it’s a miracle!


Then there’s the business with time quakes and paradoxes potentially destroying the future; these are ideas that really ought to be manifested in a more traditional winking out of existence manner, rather than of the ploddingly literal explosive sort we see. The grip on the paradox element is also pretty slack. Self-righteous Coventry (Brent Carver) blames Bill for the destruction (“If you had left this alone, none of this would have happened”) but the same might be said of his tampering with time in the first place.


Earlier, and most bafflingly, a significant chunk of the movie is given over to Cheryl’s first meeting with Bill (the other side of his first meeting with her). This is at the behest of the Council, cogently noting that she “did go back, must go back” yet they bizarrely direct her to dissuade Bill from investigating further and preventing further paradoxes. Surely they must know this can’t succeed, because it hasn’t succeeded (Bill is still investigating after he has met her for his first time, and her second time)? Particularly if they’re always observing Bill (“And now they’re watching me. I can feel it. They can go anywhere, look anywhere”; it would be a more potent idea if their society had much heft). I suppose it could just be muddled delivery, that the Council are merely indicating Louise needs to go through the motions (by effectively prostituting herself as a distraction!), but shouldn't she be sufficiently versed in temporal theory to be told straight out that's all she'll be doing?


Kristofferson has always struck me as a snoozerific version of Jeff Bridges, and he’s in an eternal living slumber here. Ladd did well to actually make it into a feature, I guess, and full marks on her ultra-Roxette future hair (all their resources must be tied up in providing her with a steady supply of gell and hairspray). The support is much rewarding, though.


Travanti, I’m not familiar with (I never watched Hill Street Blues), but he’s great, particularly in his mysterious earlier scenes. It’s a bit bizarre that Smith is revealed as the kid aboard the 1963 flight, as everything seems to be pointing to Mayer (his obsession, how he gets hold of the stun weapon left aboard the plane). I don’t know Joy or Carver’s work either, but they also make strong impressions as robot and decayed director respectively.


Millennium can currently be seen on YouTube (with Spanish subtitles). It’s a picture with a series of really strong, arresting central ideas, and they see it through to about the halfway mark, but eventually its overtaken by the sheer passivity of its production, the inconsistency of its all-important time travel conceit, and the lack of engagement generated by the leads. But it’s never less than an interesting failure. Time travel movies very rarely stand up to even cursory inspection, but at least this one has the will to be interrogated.



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 .

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.