Skip to main content

I need to believe we didn't treat him like trash.

The X-Files
10.4: Home Again

Something isn’t quite working with regard to these valiant attempts at servicing the interpersonal histories of Mulder and Scully. I suspect the root is that this mini-season finds itself caught between two stools. Determinedly resuming the format for which the series was best known (monster-of-the-weeks book-ended by the conspiracy arc), it’s constantly checking itself, aware that this is an “event”, and business-as-usual is a lie, irrespective of whether Mulder assures Scully “Back in the day is now”. In Home Again Glen Morgan sandwiches one of his more thoughtful ruminations about loss and mortality between a crudely-fashioned killer plot concerning a crudely-fashioned killer. The result is neither fish nor fowl, and seems to confirm that the only X-Files veteran able to find his feet in 2016 is the one who least contributed to the show originally (Darin Morgan).


Morgan’s episode is well shot at any rate (surprisingly, this is his first TV work, having directed two features since the show’s original run), the highlight being a Trash Man stalk-and-slaying set to Petula Clark’s Downtown. Although, that perhaps isn’t the most innovative choice of tune, having cropped up on both Seinfeld and Lost (now that was a series with a facility for exceptional music cues). Unfortunately, Morgan has bolted together two ideas that don’t really want to mingle. The Band-Aid Nose Man is a sort-of-Golem for the disenfranchised, righting wrongs by slaying anyone who has it in for the Philadelphian homeless. On the one hand, the sight of this snotty-worm-ridden fellow climbing into a refuse truck compactor is quite arresting, on the other Morgan seems to think his nebulous, cock-eyed non-explanation for its activities is quite sufficient; it’s enough that it dovetails thematically with the Scully plotline.


He’s half-right. I half-liked that the monster isn’t the result of some science experiment or hazardous waste gone awry, but is flat-out metaphysical. Its unwitting Trash Man creator (punk rock musician Tim Armstrong) is even instantly beleaguered by a classic bit of Mulder theoretical combativeness as the FBI agent pedantically takes apart the idea that Buddhism gives any substance to the notion of thought forms being given substance. But the powers of the Trash Man are left vague, as if Morgan couldn’t be bothered to flesh them out (has he just materialised a Watchmen smiley with his last sculpture?); “I made them, I didn’t mean to, but I made them”. His basement appears to be awash with creatures manifested from his id, but the writer-director has no apparent interest in exploring this idea further, abruptly wrapping things up soon thereafter.


It’s unfortunate too that the homeless issue is addressed in such a carefree manner (some of the plot transitions are also glaringly transparent; witness the meal made of Mulder announcing he will examine the graffiti, just so he can get a plaster stuck to his shoe). Initially it’s a nice touch to discover that not only the redeveloper (Daryl Shuttleworth as Daryl Landry) but also the woman protesting him (Peggy Jo Jacobs’ Nancy Huff) are out only for their own self-interest (she doesn’t want the problem moved to the doorstep of her school). But then we get Mulder preaching platitudinously from the moral high ground (“What I don’t hear is who speaks for them?”). 


Ire is later reserved for those who would thrive off the homeless (profiteering graffiti makers; riffing on the industry springing up around the Banksy-esque Trash Man), but is Morgan’s shallow hijacking of the issue much better? Lip service is also paid to matters of ecology (plastic in landfills), but such cherry-picking of causes tends to make the makers seem rather out of touch with it all, typing away not-so-furiously from the comfort of their Hollywood mansions.


Morgan, who with James Wong was responsible for more meditative original series episodes including Beyond the Sea and One Breath, does significantly better with Scully’s plotline concerning her ailing mother languishing on life support. Here too he doesn’t feel the need to solve all the mysteries he poses, but it comes across as much more fitting (“I don’t care about the big questions right now, Mulder. I just want one more chance to ask my mom a few little ones”). We don’t know why Margaret Scully (Sheila Larkin, returning to the role) amended her living will to prevent resuscitation, although Scully deduces she asked about estranged son Charlie because “she wanted to know before she left that he’d be okay”, and her last words concerned William in order to ensure she and Mulder were duly responsible for theirson.


Mulder looks duly constipated throughout her outpouring, although I liked his sincerity when she first hears about Ma Scully. There’s an attempt to bring together the two storylines as Scully parses that the Band-Aid man is Trash Man’s responsibility just as William is hers and Mulders, but it’s rather over-didactic. And the last line on the subject is abjectly abysmal, as Morgan pulls a “Did you see what I did there?” when Scully surmises “I need to believe we didn’t treat him like trash”.


I doubt such diligence was on Chris Carter’s mind as he devised this mini-season’s grand design. While the focus on William might be seen as an apologia for making such a hash of things with the Mulder/Scully coupling and its repercussions first time round ("You are responsible, if you made the problem"), the truth is more likely that he couldn’t think of anything better as a hook. He really should have pulled out all the stops to make this must-see TV, to prove to those who dismissed the second movie that he could still knock the show out of the park when it counted. Instead, he seems to be letting the whole thing lollop along without a care in the world. The broader, ongoing story ought to have been a compelling, robust, and evidencing through its approach to character that he grasps the dynamics of the best of modern TV (remember when The X-Files was the best of modern TV? Now it looks nigh-on antique). Like the considerably younger nu-Who, the show has stagnated through the presence of past-their-best hands with nothing left to give to it.


As one who appreciates a good “real world” conspiracy, I was attracted by comments that the series’ return is in aid of engineering a partial disclosure narrative concerning the whole UFO/ alien/ suppressed technologies shebang.  I suppose, if those contributing to the series were presented with a remit, it might at least explain why they’re guilty of such sloppy writing. While the idea of human-posing-as-alien sanctioned abductions has gained currency of late, it’s curious that shows cited as playing this disclosure game (Stargate SG-1, Person of Interest) hardly represent the vanguard of quality storytelling. Perhaps that’s the perverse intent; dismiss a show as pap and so the message seeps into the greater consciousness with nary a murmur. Notably, alt-paradigm-weaver extraordinaire Ben Fulford reported (according to his usual Pentagon sources) that Fox “has been ordered to reboot The X-Files program to reveal truth in plain sight about alien technology, free energy, anti-gravity, 9/11, NSA, depopulation etc”. He added that Bush cancelled the show “to prevent it from exposing 9/11”.


I guess Mulder’s list of conspiracy subjects in My Struggle might be seen to qualify as the “truth in plain sight”, but one long-winded Mulder paragraph seems hardly worth the effort. The X-Files production narrative as presented by Fulford suggests a coherent, consistent series that knew exactly what it was doing (such clear intent and firm control being common/crucial to most conspiracy narratives, easier to assert after the fact), something the show had sacrificed all pretence at by the fourth or fifth season. If one were to accept the principle of such design, one would also have to accept intentional obfuscation (and where’s the line between that and sheer incompetence at telling a story?)


Anyway, Morgan may not be at the top of his game plot-wise, but he still sets up a few quality gags. Mulder and Scully investigating “spooky” cases is mentioned, and Mulder enjoys himself pointing out the absurd nature of the crime scene (“Which is impossible, by the way” he says of the toeprint-free evidence). A head has been dropped in the trash, “Not even the proper recycling bin”, and he greets the arguing Shuttleworth and Huff with “And who are these two fine representatives of the City of Brotherly Love?” Maybe jokes are the only way forward (some of them casting an favourable reflection on the new, such as Morgan calling this Home Again to make fans think it was a sequel to the classic Home),  as telling it straight doesn’t seem to be doing the trick any more. Scully observes at one point, “You’re a dark wizard, Mulder”. It’s a shame the showrunners aren’t.


Comments

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…

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

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…

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…

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

Yeah, she loused up one of the five best days of your life.

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
(SPOILERS) The zeitgeist Best Picture Oscar winner is prone to falling from grace like no other. Often, they’re films with notable acting performances but themes that tend to appear antiquated or even slightly offensive in hindsight. Few extol the virtues of American Beauty the way they did twenty years ago, and Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t quite seen as exemplifying a sensitive and balanced examination of the fallout of divorce on children and their parents the way it was forty years previously. It remains a compelling film for the performances, but it’s difficult not to view it, despite the ameliorating effect of Meryl Streep (an effect she had to struggle to exert), as a vanity project of its star, and one that doesn’t do him any favours with hindsight and behind-the-scenes knowledge.