Skip to main content

I'm familiar with Edward Snowden.

The X-Files
10.2: Founder’s Mutation

If Chris Carter has done little of note since the series’ end (is he actually real, or just a surf-robot pumping out subterfuge and obfuscation at the behest of his mysterious overlords, and Rupert Murdoch?), James Wong has been a busy bee. There was the Final Destinationseries, and several remakes (Willard, Black Christmas), while on TV was The Event, and a (current) big hit with American Horror Story. Alas, the once fertile mind that collaborated so richly on the series (and on the best season of Millennium) with Glen Morgan now seems to be running on empty. Founder’s Mutation feels as much of a rehash in its own way as Carter’s debut, stranded by a feeling of banal familiarity.


Some kind of freak aberrance of technology causing people to go mad, crazy, or self-destruct, was a tried and tested favourite of the series, even though I’m sure it feels like it featured more than it did. About the only fresh aspect of Wong’s self-written and helmed episode (it’s auteur heaven in this event mini-season) is the passing reason for the tech guy stabbing himself in the head in the opening teaser; the mild-mannered janitor (Jonathan Whitesell) next door was unwittingly responsible.


Maybe this episode was shuffled forward from the penultimate position in order to maintain the thematic thread of experimentation on pregnant women and alien DNA (the latter here manifested in Mulder and Scully imagining lives with their surrendered-to-adoption son William; as with their coupling, this may have needed addressing, but the makers are making rather a meal of continuity, inserting it as an obligation rather than making it vital or interesting, lumpenly dropping in mention of the Syndicate too), but the effect merely feels repetitive rather than intriguing.


Befitting his horror credentials, Wong ensures there’s much visceral weirdness and grue. And CGI crows. The visit to the facility of Dr Goldman (Doug Savant) includes some appropriately freakish genetic abnormalities, and then there’s the opening brain/ blunt object interface, and the death of Goldman himself.


Wong’s ready (sick) sense of humour is also on display in the form of some choice Mulder one-liners. Asked about that incident, he comments “I blacked out after Goldman’s eyes popped out of his sockets. Believe me, you can’t unsee that”. Warned of the consequences of mentioning their business outside the bureau, he responds “I’m familiar with Edward Snowden”. He also cracks wise regarding Obamacare, is mistaken for a toilet trader, and pilfers a mobile phone from the crime scene (“You know me Scully, I’m old school”). Best of all is his response to the impassive Jackie Goldman (Rebecca Wisocky), who has been suddenly galvanised into hurling an apple in the direction of a startled moggy (“You don’t like cats?”) Savant receives the award for most sinister delivery of the episode (“Would you mind if I took some blood?”) while Christine Willes relishes the chance to accentuate devout Sister Mary (“Men and their lies. Desire is the devil’s pitchfork!”)


There are also clips referencing the realm of genetic advancement and evolution (Escape from the Planet of the Apes and 2001), but generally Founder’s Mutation is too much like a facsimile of an original series episode. What The X-Files needs is to evidence the relevance Carter waxed lyrical about it still having. It more than has a perfect footing to embrace the conspirasphere of the 2000-and-teens, but it may be that it needs fresh blood rather than the old alumni to take advantage of it.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for