Skip to main content

Big bada boom.

The Fifth Element
(1997)

(SPOILERS) Goofy movies that don’t announce their intent or stick to clearly-defined genre templates can get a rough ride. Ones that exhibit a “European” sense of humour even more so. Luc Besson’s long-gestating science fiction fantasy action comedy (he had the idea when he was 15, which critics would surely claim tells you everything) is underpinned by the simplest – some would say trite and hackneyed – of concepts, but unlike, say, Ridley Scott’s Legend, which also paints on the most unsophisticated of thematic canvasses, The Fifth Element’s core sincerity is diffused by overwhelming irreverence everywhere else. This is a mad, crazy, whacky, indulgent, over the top, immensely likeable rush of a movie, added to which it boasts design work as breath-taking as Blade Runner’s, albeit shooting in completely the opposite direction. Most of all, it is shamelessly, flamboyantly camp, which can be a very difficult sell to more conservative tastes.


If I were to find fault in The Fifth Element, I might point to that freeze-frame ending, which is on the naff side (and much as I like the Roger Moore Bonds, repeating the “He’s busy shagging sir” motif doesn’t quite work here; more in tune is the stewardess climaxing via Ruby as a bomb goes off), and that Leeloo’s reaction to all the hurt that humans inflict, even in such an intentionally unrefined manner as depicted here, is so overdone, it’s difficult not to groan at the faux-naivety. But those are relatively minor shortcomings. I adore the picture’s exuberance, its dedication to being its own thing, kowtowing to no one for pointers on acceptable approaches or genre boundaries. Such individuality, though, can do for a picture if it’s unleashed on unsympathetic critics and audiences. It’s particularly notable that the movie made 75% of its take outside the US (it came in ninth for the year globally), even with the Brucie bonus factor to bolster its appeal.


Ah yes, Bruce Willis. Even at his zenith, Willis’ bankability was patchy, but he still managed a Top 10 movie globally in five years of that decade. The Fifth Element represents something of a transition point, however. This is the last time we will really see fun Bruce Willis, the Bruce Willis who, for all the stories of an unchained ego, delivered something charismatic and relatable, above and beyond the all-purpose steely, impassive gaze masquerading as depth or thoughtfulness (and more commonly an all-purpose steely, impassive gaze on auto-pilot). 


This is just about the last time we’d reap dividends from Willis’ willingness to mock himself or not take himself and his “craft” seriously (he even gets bopped on the head, and doesn’t shoot anyone until the third act). Sure, there are a few comedic exceptions later (Disney’s The Kid, The Whole Nine Yards) but they aren’t ones to be celebrated. Here we get Willis with his Die Hard gun-toting and his whip smart, whacky, mouthing off (Hudson Hawk), and it’s refreshing to recall just why he was a star back then. He has long-since calcified, alas.


He looks like he’s having a ball here, but then again so does Gary Oldman as villain Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg. Oldman later attested that he took the gig merely to return a favour to Besson, commenting “Oh no. I can’t bear it”. Which is a shame, as he’s great, rising to the occasion of cartoonish eccentricity-and-then-some in a role where he doesn’t even share screen time with the protagonist (his arms sale to the incompetent Mangalores – “My favourite”, as he lets off a flamethrower – is a particular delight). Of course, Willis’ villains have a habit of blanking all notion of the merit in his more madcap vehicles, with Richard E Grant failing to register the appeal of Hudson Hawk (“What drugs do you take, young man?”), a similarly curate’s egg of a movie.


Almost everyone here could be said to elicit mixed responses from audiences, none more so than Chris Tucker’s Ruby Rhod. I’m generally quite cool on Tucker’s schtick (not that there’s much of it to assess, outside of Rush Hour sequels), but he slays it as the motor-mouthed pan-sexual Prince clone (the role was originally intended for the recently deceased purple pop star), and somehow gets away with implied cunnilingus in PG-rated fare. 


And where else could you gather such an eclectic cast? Willis sharing screen time with Lee Evans?! Gary Oldman accompanied by henchman Tricky (and the latter quite funny at that)? Tiny Lister as the President of Earth? Brion James as a good guy? Ian Holm doing comedy Ian Holm (and stealing whole scenes; he completely gets Besson’s tone)? Luke Perry…


There’s also John Bennett showing up as an Egyptian, continuing his status as a go-to for various ethnicities, and two decades after donning yellow face in Doctor Who’s The Talons of Weng-Chiang. Not that I think Besson would have seen it, but the casting here generally does suggest jackdaw appreciation of genre fare, from Gilliam (Holm in Brazil rather than Holm in Alien, John Neville in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen), to the aforementioned James (more in Crimewave mode than Blade Runner).


And Milla Jovovich as the supreme being of the universe showing a flair for comedy that’s been too-little tapped (see the Zoolanders) along with a beguiling innocence suggestive of a sexually precocious Starman (Bridges), in designer Gaultier threads (and they are mere threads, at least at the start).


Jovovich married Besson for a spell, of course, before getting hitched to Paul W Anderson and becoming most identified in the less than sterling, but financial robust, Resident Evil franchise. She’s every bit as vital to The Fifth Element’s success as Willis and Oldman, with her pigeon English and Neo-like capacity for learning Kung Fu from watching TV (I wonder where the Wachowskis got their idea from?) What exactly is the nature of Leeloo’s supreme being-ness that she goes on to have a normal relationship with a human? Besson is really unconcerned by such things; it’s a “love conquers all” scenario, not one to be analysed for literal sense, since the premise doesn’t support any kind of literal sense.


Much as I wish Besson well with his return to the lavish sci-fi well in next year’s Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, I’m given pause by the lead casting; Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Ethan Hawke?  DeHaan in particular is a fine actor, but there’s a distinct danger that, whatever the merits of the movie, the performers will slide indistinctly into the bold, captivating spectacle Besson is fashioning. Look what happened with the similarly star-deficient Jupiter Ascending, Godzilla, and recent Ben-Hur.


Valerian is sure to look amazing, at any rate, since Besson’s facility for science fiction world building (putting Lucy to one side) is up there with the greats. Here he eschews the darkness and gloom of dystopian sci-fi and instead accomplishes the impossible feat of something equally arresting. An over-populated, cramped, industrialised Earth that manages not to be depressing (there’s no greenery here; even the 1914 prologue is all desert), one where even the corporate culpability that is McDonalds is to be perversely celebrated/ripped. 


Mostly because he populates it with bizarre, absurd (those police uniforms), colourful costumes, daft conceits (even the cigarettes are reversed), and awesome design work from Moebius (Jean Giraud) and Valerian artist Jean-Claude Mezieres. The cityscape is amazing, the air cars extraordinary (the effects still look top notch), and the creature designs are just the right side of silly.


Dallas: Urgh, just found a picture of you.
Munro: How do I look?
Dallas: Like shit.
Munro: Must be an old picture.

The movie is full of lovely little asides and irresistible details, from the prologue onwards (“Ah-ah, are you German?” asks John Bluthal’s Professor Pacoli of the Mondoshawans) to the ever-present voice of Korben Dallas’ mum (“You miserable bastard, I should never have pushed you out”) and the banter with James’ General Munro, to Mathieu Kassovitz’s incompetent, drugged-up mugger (“That’s a nice hat”: “You like it?”), all staged and framed by Besson with an eye for the bold, clean, and caricatured, ready to bust right out of the frame. 


There’s Korben’s boss-eyed cat, the priests’ coyness over Leeloo and Munro’s lack thereof (“I’d like to take a few pictures – for the archives”; such invasiveness is counterpointed when Dallas is told at gunpoint “Never without my permission” after he kisses her sleeping), Zorg choking as a desktop elephant gets popped with a cherry, Dallas asking Cornelius “But you must drink a lot of coffee being a priest, huh?”, and the Marx Brothers-esque hiding of various parties in Corbin’s cramped apartment.


Cornelius: You are a monster, Zorg.
Zorg: I know.

And accompanying the proceedings is a magnificently rambunctious electronic score from Eric Serra. Serra copped a lot of flak for his contribution to Goldeneye two years earlier (I mostly really liked it), and his work has generally been confined to servicing Besson, for whom he is the perfect accompaniment, offering bold rhythmic beats that synchronise dramatically or humorously with the precisely edited images. For all the wackiness, he can also provoke awe, such as the operatic performance by Diva Plavalaguna (Inva Mula did the singing, while Maiwenn Le Besco, who was married to Luc Besson, personified her; the liaison between Besson and Maiwenn is a whole can of worms, particularly if it leads you to read strong elements of autobiography into Léon).


What of the thematic core then, that of the fifth element being love (in concert with “Evil begets evil, Mr President”)? I mean, it’s childlike and artless, but while I’m usually one to scowl at such obviousness in a movie, I find it very easy to be pulled along here, the aforementioned “What’s the use of saving life when you see what you do to it” aside (also rather clunkily called upon in Cameron’s The Abyss eight years earlier). It’s not as if the almighty force threatening to destroy the universe isn’t a tried and tested trope (at least two Star Trek movies have employed it), and the verve and panache of the telling, and chemistry between Willis and Jovovich, leave me with little to grumble about.


I don’t think The Fifth Element is a particularly deep film (and its self-awareness and high camp make it resistant to the kind of analyses that would ascribe serious layering, be it in terms of gender stereotyping or profound commentary on our capacity for self-destruction), but it’s a tremendously good-spirited one, encapsulating a joie de vivre and infectious knockabout anarchy, combined with its director at his unfettered best.








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

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.

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.

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.

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