Skip to main content

Women. Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em.

True Lies
(1994)

(SPOILERS) James Cameron might not quite yet have been King of the World in 1994, but he was definitely King of Science Fiction Cinema. Terminator 2: Judgement Day had become the biggest movie of 1991 worldwide (luckily for Carolco, which bet the bank on it), and consequently he could do anything he wanted next. And what he wanted to do was mystifying. Perhaps it stemmed from an attempt to show his “range” (after all, his next non-genre offering nabbed him the coveted Best Picture Oscar), but a remake of obscure French movie La Totale!, a spy comedy that allowed Cameron to make his Bond movie, that was really an examination of matrimony and its idiosyncrasies, was certainly a highly conscious departure. More to the point, it revealed an ugly side to the director, a side one might have seen lurking within his previous projects, but had not displayed itself so remorselessly. True Lies, which Arnie brought to Jimbo but was heavily re-envisaged with co-writer Randall Frakes, is an inveterately misanthropic picture, misogynistic, mean-spirited, and shot through with the kind of unvarnished racism and fear of the (Middle Eastern) foreigner that would make died-in-the-wool Republicans proud. It’s also not nearly as funny as it thinks it is.


Which isn’t the fault of the cast. Tom Arnold, for the best part of a decade-and-a-half a one-man publicity machine for a never-to-be sequel (understandably, since its easily his highest profile movie role, and highest profile role full stop, outside of being the one-time Mr Roseanne Barr; the official line was that terrorists weren’t funny anymore after 9/11 – when of course they were a hoot during the weekly carnage of the ‘70s –  but I’m dubious a True Lies 2 was ever seriously going to happen, certainly not post-Titanic and Cameron’s Oscar-nourished respectability), plays Albert “Gib” Gibson, partner of Arnold’s Harry Tasker, both agents for counter-terrorist task force The Omega Sector. He delivers his lines with perfectly droll timing (his advice, to get over Arnie’s wife’s infidelity: “We’re gonna catch some terrorists, we’re gonna beat the crap out of them, you’re gonna feel a whole lot better”), and has an easy rapport with Schwarzenegger that rivals the latter’s better comedy co-stars (Danny De Vito, James Belushi).


Jamie Lee Curtis applies herself to the thankless role of Harry’s wife Helen. It’s one that requires her to be first shrewish, then transform into a highly objectified version of sexy, but for the most part remain determinedly submissive to her husband and say nary a word of criticism after she discovers his secret (the one that leads to him spying on her, kidnapping her, interrogating her, deceiving her, generally putting her in dire peril, and, on top of everything else he’s done, essentially pimping her into “discovering” the sexpot within), shows expert and under-used comic timing, particularly in the pratfall department.


And Arnie, who was never going to be convincing as an elegant spy, and isn’t, doesn’t come across half badly for much of the duration, his talent for self-deprecation coming to the fore not in the rather lazy one-liners (“You’re fired!”) but his applying himself against type, be it Harry riding apologetically through crowds of people (“Excuse me… So sorry”) or his confession that, in his 17 years as a spy, he had indeed killed people (“Yes, but they were all bad”), or nonchalantly explaining under truth serum how he will kill his interrogator and then proceeding to do exactly that. Best of all is his remonstrating with his appropriated horse over not taking a leap (“Look at me when I talk to you. What kind of cop are you anyway?”). Seeing him do the tango is quite fun too.


It’s in the scenarios written purely for laughs that True Lies rally comes up short, first and foremost with Bill Paxton’s used-car salesman, wannabe lothario, and pretend spy. The conceit of Paxton’s Simon posing as a secret agent as a means to conquer Helen, while her real husband is a spy but she doesn’t know, is the kind of high-concept premise that needs to be absolutely perfectly judged lest you become aware of how unforgivably tenuous it is. As such, you’d expect Cameron to avoid it like the plague. But then, comedy has never been his forte, so he was probably unable to see through his blind spot.


Simon is crude and vile, presumably so much so that we’re supposed to forget how cruel and vile Harry’s actions are. He’s a character for whom Cameron creates a running gag of soiling himself, and announce precisely how inferior specimen of maleness he is (“I’ve got a little dick, it’s pathetic”). Yet Harry’s grand, decades-spanning deceit sees him rewarded. Maybe Cameron was scripting some payback here, taking in his failed marriages and confused relationship with strong woman (he wants to dominate them and be dominated by them, wants them to assume traditional male roles but also know their place as subordinates). Maybe not for viewers, but it’s probably best that he works out his issues away from the psychiatrist’s couch; it would be a nightmare for any unsuspecting shrink, having Jimbo lying there, instructing them how they feel, and have got it all wrong, week in, week out.


There’s something deeply corrupted at the core of True Lies. Cameron keeps prodding at the fact Harry knows he’s doing wrong (and Arnie in jealous obsessive mode is quite convincing), such as the reflection of Simon in Tasker (“So basically you’re lying your ass off all the time. You see, I couldn’t do that”) but entirely fails to bring him to book for it. The love story of the director’s earlier The Abyss takes on a different hue when seen through the unseemly lens of True Lies, reduced to the tale of a wayward wife who must accept her husband as the rightful exemplar of masculine authority and submit accordingly.


Nominally, the end of True Lies finds Helen and Harry acting as a unit, spying together, but the lesson learned is that the husband can do whatever he wants, and get little more than a remonstrative punch for scores of years of lies, while his wife should be humiliated, terrorised and preyed upon for even thinking about flirting with another man (she does considerably less than Harry in his first tango, with Tia Carrere’s Juno).


Cameron’s writing of Helen’s motivation is also found wanting (“I needed to feel alive!”) since it plays into a justification for Harry’s next action (giving her what she wants by further manipulating her into discovering her inner whore). One can see parallels in Art Malik’s absurdly caricatured Middle Eastern terrorist Salim Abu Aziz. If you want to hone in on a really objectionable example of Hollywood racism with regard to Arabic countries, look no further than the writer of Rambo: First Blood Part II in this Pentagon-assisted picture.


Salim is given – like Helen – a line of justification for his behaviour (“You have killed our women and our children. Bombed our cities from afar like cowards, and you dare call us terrorists” – as relevant a charge today as ever) but aside from that, he’s a relentlessly evil Arab; perhaps, after his sympathetic Afghan freedom fighter in The Living Daylights, Malik thought he should strike a balance?


We know how unconscionably evil Salim is, because he hits Juno on the first occasion we see him, and even stoops to kidnapping Harry’s daughter Dana (Eliza Dushku, soon to find TV fame in Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Cameron’s not really racist, though, because he pulls the oldest trick of “balance” in the book by casting Grant Heslov (latterly best buddy of George Clooney) as Faisal, the good Arab on Harry’s team. Now any accusations of imbalance ought to just melt away.


There might be something to be said for such a depiction of comedy villains (see the briefest of slivers of clumsy Libyans attempting to obtain nuclear capability in Back to the Future – such innocent times!), so inept that they blow themselves up, or the battery runs out on their video camera midway through a ransom demand, but it’s entirely leaden in Cameron’s crude, ill-defined hands. “It’s funny, funny, just funny” he claimed of the the picture’s purported lack of political intent. If True Lies was just funny, that might be something. But this is a movie in which a device of repeated hilarity is having an extra react in surprise to the latest outlandish action its director is staging. The picture essentially coasts on the assumption of such responses. As a comedy director, Cameron makes a good dramatist.


Ironically, as an action director he also leaves something to be desired. True Lies has a most ungainly structure, but that one that at least aids Cameron in his attempts to avoid facing the morass he has created (the evil terrorists initiate much of the action, so superseding any need for serious reconciliation between wounded parties; besides, Arnie is, quite simply, the hero). Cameron can stage a scene, and as ever he put the camera in the optimum position. But the bigger his ego and budget swell, the less he musters much in the way of excitement.


And Brad Fiedel’s score is so generically forgettable, it’s only a surprise the director went with him. An early fight in a men’s room (where someone is sitting on the toilet; of course they are) is effective – and possibly inspired Casino Royale – but the big event car chase and bridge rescue, complete with copious green screen work, is something of a damp squib. Even more so the harrier jet finale, where you can perceive the technical challenges being Cameron’s priority rather than engaging with the action. Daft exertions such as Dana bouncing around the nose of the plane, while Salim bashes his balls on the tail (before – chortlesomely! – getting snagged on a missile and fired into oblivion, hence that previously mentioned standard Arnie one-liner), anticipate the increasingly virtual world a once visceral director will inhabit. It’s silly, basically, but not in an affable, Roger Moore, way.


There are plain odd touches too, such as Harry and Helen smooching to a mushrooming nuclear explosion in the background, a metaphor that’s unpleasant whichever way you cut it. But unpleasant sums up True Lies. It’s Cameron at his most sordid, tasteless and graceless, not that he’s ever been exactly graceful. However, at least the later Titanic and Avatar have a clarity to their telling – I hesitate to say purity –  amid the paucity of restraint. True Lies is a deeply dubious movie from conception onwards, and one that isn’t even up to scratch in terms of its director’s traditional forte. None of which stopped it becoming the third highest grossing movie of 1994. Cameron’s all-consuming successes still lay ahead of him, but for Arnie it was something of an end of the road. Only his returns as a T1000 would meet with anything approaching the financial success to which he’d become accustomed, and they’d be more of a sad reminder than a rejuvenation of his career.



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

Popular posts from this blog

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.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There