Skip to main content

How strong do you have to be to pull a trigger?

G.I. Jane
(1997)

(SPOILERS) In the late ‘60s, Pauline Kael wrote a piece bemoaning (she was quite good at bemoaning) the state of US movie companies over how they were turning to England for directors. She commented, “The English can write and they can act… but they can’t direct movies”. She proceeded with a list of examples, honourably exempting Hitchcock and Carol Reed (but unforgivably omitting Michael Powell). It admittedly included a string of fair comments, but also rather unjustly picked on several lights of the comedy genre, as if that was ever, anywhere, with very rare exception, known for stylistic darlings.


Flash forward a decade and Kael would probably reconsider her assessment of the “fundamental lack of directorial energy and distinction – of any real directorial artistry”, as the influx of ad directors from British shores began to make their mark. One of whom, of course, was Sir Ridders of Scott, who rightly wowed with his directorial artistry over the course of three or four movies, yet even at that point exhibited little grasp of the importance of the screenplay (and only progressively less so since) and whose skill with actors tend to amount to hoping he’d settled for the right one (Kingdom of Heaven would firmly evidence how hit-and-miss this approach was).


Scott was nearly 60 by the time G.I. Jane came out, and some might have feared he was past it as a filmmaker, despite being a late starter in features; the director whose announcement of a new project was awaited with anticipation only a few years earlier was now reduced to churning out a flashy, vacuous star vehicle, one that made Private Benjamin look nuanced. He appeared creatively spent, still going through the motions stylistically (albeit with markedly less pictorial elegance) but bereft of any compass.


Of course, his post-Gladiator hot-ish streak and re-energisation (10 movies in the 20 years prior, 16 and counting in the 16 since) could be quite legitimately argued as simply a more productive run of style over substance, with less vacillating in between; his recognition of decent material remains as hopeless as before and, as here, when he inadvisably ventures into the territory of politically-charged material (Black Hawk Down, Body of Lies) his deficiencies as a keen thinker are cast in an even less flattering light.


But G.I. Jane, from the title down, remains, with Black Rain, on a separate tier of undisguised commercialism; elsewhere, Scott has generally at least made some gesture towards a veneer of artistic integrity or sincere intent. Jane is the kind of fare brother Tony (RIP) would have been more likely to take on, and also more than likely to have had considerably more fun with; the propaganda piece that is Top Gun, or the paranoia palace of Enemy of the State, dive headlong into their subject matter, relishing them, whatever conclusions you may draw about the finished product.


There’s no such unabashed good time to be had with G.I. Jane. Part of that may be that there’s no good time to be had with Demi Moore, even though she gets away with a skinhead every bit as well as Sigourney in Alien 3. Not that she deserved the Razzie (nomination) – what’s ridiculous about the movie isn’t really about her performance – but its essential, standard-issue, against-the-odds, crowd-pleasing premise would have played much more readily if someone with real spark had taken the lead.


Mostly, though, it’s about Sir Ridders, director for hire. He admitted Jane was a formulaic affair at the time, designed with the express intention of putting bums on seats, possibly in response to the back-to-back failures of 1492: Conquest of Paradise and White Squall. And possibly he thought – in his own, non-screenplay-savvy way – he could rekindle some of the kudos Thelma and Louise (and, in a retrospective sense, Alien) garnered him as a “feminist director”. If you can’t really blame his commercial instincts – Ridley gotta smoke cigars, and also eat – the crassness on display is entirely his baby, since he plays every clichéd element to the hilt.  


The screenplay is courtesy of Danielle Alexandra and David Twohy. The latter provided the rewrite, and he was probably the wrong guy – what Jane needed was a literate rather than a B-sensibility, if anyone was actually going to get away with exploring this subject without yielding snorts of derision.


That’s because the debate Alexandra and Twohy muster is lazily provocative, only seeming interested in making its case through shallow bombast (so much so, it’s indicative of the half-arsed execution that it didn’t do better business). The suggestion that women shouldn’t only be allowed to serve in the military (well, in the Navy) and be treated on an entirely equal footing to men, but should also be admitted to the SEALs and allowed to serve on the front line (both of which the Pentagon opened the door to last year), makes for an attention-grabbing premise. Yet the picture fudges and obfuscates its intentions repeatedly. Anne Bancroft’s self-serving senator picks Moore’s Lieutenant Jordan O’Neill as a test case on the grounds of her photogenic femininity (in comparison to other candidates), later revealing, after attempting to sabotage her prospects, that she never thought O’Neill would get so far (serving to underline Demi as the classic, root-able-for underdog). O’Neill replies “I wanted the choice. That’s how it’s supposed to be”. But supposed-to-bes are rather undermined when we’re sold a pampered Hollywood star presenting the case.


G.I. Jane is only willing to go so far in exploring its subject, before pulling back. It’s much easier just to take the leap of depicting an environment where women serve with men unquestioned, in the likes of Aliens and Starship Troopers, than traversing the minefield of getting there. The screenplay tentatively raises a few considerations/voiced objections via Viggo Mortensen’s philosopher-master chief who crudely attempts to demonstrate how easily manipulated for information the recruits would be under POW conditions, as he places O’Neill in a situation of imminent rape during a training exercise. He has earlier told her how the Israeli army encountered difficulties with equal status as male soldiers would prioritise injured female troops; his point being, the theoretical equality just wouldn’t happen in practice.


However, Scott is making a crowd-pleaser; O’Neill fights back from being pinned down, which means the raised-scenario is left unresolved (one response might be that male soldiers could just as easily be subjected to rape), and further she is given an (intended) air-punching but risibly crass rebuke of “Suck my dick!”, a that line gets her formerly-begrudging fellow recruits fully behind her.


Rather than the situation with a prospective enemy, the picture probably ought to have focussed more on military culture itself, in which sexual assault (male and female) is a pervasive problem. O’Neill’s “I wanted the choice” perspective may be sound in terms of principles of equality, but it’s filtered through Scott’s lens of rote, fist-pumping classical Hollywood concepts of heroism and bravery, right down to the finale’s “true grit” real combat situation (something recruits face even in comedies, to show they have the stuff; here it is ridiculously cheesily rendered in pre-shakycam fashion, the image beset by shallow zooms akin to reflecting the image in a piece of shaky tin foil).


He’s having his cake and eating it, offering the crumbs of a serious argument (“She’s not the problem, we are” observes Viggo sagely) but then dousing it in make-believe, smoke machines, shafts of studio light and Apocalypse Now sunsets. Should women be allowed the same opportunities for degradation, indoctrination, brutalisation and brutalising, killing and being killed (oh, and defending their country, or rather, attacking others’ countries according to the dictates of extending corporate interests) as men, if they want to? Certainly; there’s no accounting for common sense, after all (and we should extend that inclusiveness to age too, since at 35, Demi was too old, even with an officer’s waiver). Illustrative of the picture’s limited reach is the facile story Morris Chestnut recounts, concerning his father’s WWII experience (rejected from a unit because “Negroes can’t see at night”), that meets with disbelief from the same guys giving Demi a hard time.


Scott’s depiction is one of a selection of banner moments; there’s little bit of resentment from O’Neill’s colleagues to overcome (most notably from that nasty Jim Cavaziel; with behaviour like his, it’s a wonder he ever got to be our Lord); standing up to her superior – The Walking Dead’s Scott Wilson –  and requesting fair treatment; performing amazing one-arm press-ups during an extended, rousing, training montage; cutting her hair while adopting a mirth-inducing empowerment pose, one suggesting she’s accidentally walked in off the set of Flashdance (with that, and her post-Striptease enhancements, Demi make a decidedly glamorous GI). Which wouldn't be such a surprise; G.I. Jane does for women in the military what that decade's Rambo: First Blood Part II did for combat veterans suffering PTSD.


It all ends in maximum respect, obviously, as O’Neill receives her Navy SEAL Combined Reconnaissance Team pin (quite why they go the route of inventing a unit when they couldn’t get military assistance, I’m not sure) and wells up when Viggo gives her his Navy Cross (these movie drill instructor guys, they’re all big softies deep down; well, except R L Ermey). She rescued Viggo, you see, in an altercation with some fiendish Libyans (thank goodness they aren’t a problem any more, right?), even though she wasn’t quite able to sling him over her shoulder.


Scott shoots with the empty sheen of an ex-ad director, so you at least know not to mistake this for having substance (he used to conjure worlds; by this point he’s merely spot-welding shots), and he’s accordingly aided by an appalling score from Trevor Jones, doing his best Hans Zimmer impression by charging every moment with imminent drama and urgency, even when (mostly) there is none.


The only person really coming out of this with a shred of dignity is Viggo (despite his short-shorts and moustache, looking for all the world like he’s auditioning for a Village People biopic); Jason Beghe also appears, pre-mangina, but is fairly nondescript. I’d actually remembered the movie being more brain-off (or brain-fart) enjoyable than it is; during the first half, the rigours of training have a certain can’t-go-wrong watchability, but without anything to really say, it soon devolves into a fusillade of tiresome tropes and knuckle-dragging postures. Probably the only lingering question is, which is inaner, this or Black Hawk Down? At least, with its title, there’s no mistaking G.I. Jane for articulate exploration of its subject matter going in.



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

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…

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…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.