Skip to main content

The ship beneath you is not a toy. And sailing's not a game.

White Squall
(1996)

(SPOILERS) What made Sir Ridders want to embark on White Squall? He’ll probably say the screenplay, since he received it on the same day Crisis in the Hot Zone, his Ebola movie starring Jodie Foster that found itself competing with Outbreak (and she with Robert Redford for screen time), was cancelled; he took a mere 90 minutes to decide it was for him. Which is about right, since he wouldn’t know a decent script if it came with an Oscar attached as a paperweight.


But, beyond simple frustration and desperation, did he fancy more seafaring after 1492: Conquest of Paradise? Or the challenging of realising a perfect storm on screen? Or… the characters? Nah, couldn’t be the latter. There ended up being four years between 1492 and this, leaving the ‘90s as a rather fallow period for the director. One rather gets the sense Scott didn’t know which way was up at the time, hence the subsequent G.I. Jane (which at least, in its own crude way, is moderately entertaining). White Squall is a long-winded bust, possibly intended as an open-ocean answer to Dead Poets Society but failing to imbue any of the empathy and character-building of Peter Weir’s Oscar-winner.


It’s certainly a contender for the least-seen Scott picture, a period piece set in 1961 charting the demise of the sailing vessel Albatross when it was struck by the titular windstorm – which some claim is the stuff of myth. The Dead Poets Society vibe comes via Jeff Bridges’ maverick “Skipper” Christopher Sheldon, an eccentric disciplinarian who inevitably earns the respect of his just-joined crew of immaculately clean-cut school lads. And the ire of a few too (which plays into the concluding trial passage).


Bridges, a couple of years shy of “Dude” status, has now effectively and seamlessly progressed to mentor roles. He’s good as far as it goes, but this isn’t a picture where you really get an insight into the motives of the man, concentrating as it does more on the lacklustre ensemble of lads. There are other adult players along for the voyage; John Savage is memorable as English tutor McCrea, seemingly channelling Richard Dreyfus’ ‘70s persona, while Caroline Goodall makes much of a limited role as Sheldon’s wife Alice. David Selby is suitably hiss-able as the father of one of the boys (who is expelled from the boat) and Zeljko Ivanek is effective cross-examining Sheldon during the final hearing sequence.


There are several problems fundamental problems, however. One is that Scott simply hasn’t assembled an engaging cast of youngsters. A couple of them (Ryan Philippe, Balthazar Getty) have managed a reasonable movie footprint since, but Party of Five star Scott Wolf is entirely insipid as the lead and narrator. Worse, the picture spends interminable amounts of time on their minor obstacles, impediments and rites of passage, all fuel for their team-building and fostering mutual respect.


Tanned and white t-shirted, they’re shot by Scott like he’s under contract with Persil, and the results are just as anodyne (some of have suggested the picture is unintentionally homoerotic, but it's too bland for there to be even a hint of sexual tension). He includes various pop hits of the period, has sequences with the shipboard rebel, and a dance with some girls, and bouts of emotional upheaval (the tough guy can’t spell!), even a contretemps with some dastardly Cubans (the director evidently gearing up for Black Hawk Down’s loathsome foreign enemy there), but the characters never develop beyond standard-issue teen types (they aren’t even sufficiently well-defined to be labelled archetypes).


We’re subjected to more than 90 minutes of this before the main attraction, which is why we’re all watching, the few of us who are, and that entire time really does feel like laborious prelude. Todd Robinson’s screenplay (from The Last Voyage of the Albatross by Charles Gieg) is numbingly literal, shuffling through each pre-appointed marker with deliberate lack of nimbleness and dexterity.


In his favour, Scott is still in the zone of feigning to build inhabitable worlds, however fallow, prior to his post-Gladiator descent into vacuum-formed production line assemblies. The problem is, as fine as the vistas are, and welcome as the luxury of actually holding a shot for a spell is, there’s no negligible content to support it. If Black Rain failed by trying to overlay his technique on crass thriller plotting, White Squall flounders through showing he has no aptitude for teenage dilemmas. When the kids are granted shore leave to explore an island for a spot of Lord of the Flies bonding, you’re left mulling that this would all have been much more impressive had Scott drafted in David Attenborough to discuss the flora and fauna of the area over the soundtrack instead. That’s the real difference between why this failed and another doomed crew disaster movie – The Perfect Storm – succeeded. For all the latter’s deficiencies, it had a couple of leads you could invest in.


The main event then, and Scott handles it with the expected proficiency. It even gives Bridges, who has been stuck with a stock firm-but-fair type until this point, a couple of moments where he can lift the proceedings; the look in his eyes when he sees the squall, and recognises just how bad it is, is worth a thousand establishing shots in convincingly stricken water tanks. Later, he must look down on his wife, trapped within the sinking vessel, with no recourse but to leave her to a watery tomb.


The trial that follows seems curiously perfunctory, but then Scott’s whole movie has that prevailing sense of uncertainty over just where its focus lies, even though that’s obviously the eye of the storm; its director isn’t looking to his characters, understandably, as they’re bereft. When the kids press around Bridges for a “Skipper, my skipper” moment of solidarity, completely with a ringing bell from his betrayer, its supposed to be a pride-swelling, emotive moment akin to the standing on desks in Dead Poets, but it elicits no response at all.


Scott went through this before, of course. After his attempt at a character piece in Someone to Watch Over Me, he made the sort of film expected of his brother with Black Rain. After this, he would do it again, with G.I. Jane. I recently read a contemporary review of Someone to Watch Over Me, one that one couldn’t imagine being lavished on the director now. Harlan Kennedy waxed lyrical about Scott’s flair for mythmaking, buying into the idea that his visual sense overlaid an entire storytelling design upon any material he chose to tackle. Such a spin was understandable back then, since his subject matter had entirely lent itself to such readings. Less than a decade later, no one would be giving him the benefit of the doubt. One might read the mythic into this picture, but it’s unmoved by such concerns. At least, unlike some of his later efforts, in terms of his own well-honed technique, White Squall isn’t a pedestrian piece of filmmaking, but it is entirely unremarkable otherwise.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.