Skip to main content

I know, because I am the Original Angel.

The OA
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Unreliable narrators can be tiresome, particularly when some bright spark(s) decide to stretch the device over eight episodes of a TV show. With a Shutter Island or Life of Pi (or Usual Suspects) there’s an end in sight, and your mileage for their content may vary based on how satisfying/over-familiar/tiresome the “It was all a dream, possibly/definitely” conceit is. Too often, they come across as a cop-out on the part of the writer, sucking the audience into a shaggy dog story that professes to have a commanding subtext but is actually led by its “twist”; rote writing and structuring are disguised as revelation, and it becomes all about that. The ambiguity becomes the point, whereas before the story at least (may have) had a number of different ideas to boast; it wags the shaggy dog and is symptomatic of the writer, having put away childish things, being unable to embrace metaphor without calling it metaphor outright. So it is with The OA.


For its devisers, Brit Marling and Zal Batmanglij, this approach may border on an obsession, not dissimilar to M Night Shyamalan’s fixation on third act plot twists, one that comes across as simultaneously superficial and patronising, as if there are lessons to be imparted that they – the ones who see – can convey, regarding susceptibility to others impressing their paradigms upon us, or simply our own inability, on a daily basis, to be sure of what we know to be true. Which makes it ironic that Marling, as one of those seemingly with a mission to instruct, casts herself as one with a mission to instruct, the cult leader with a fistful of devoted adherents.


I’m suspect my problems with The OA would be less pronounced had I not previously experinced their 2011 film Sound of My Voice; indeed, I initially resisted giving the series a look for that reason, as the premise gave me an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. I quite liked Sound of My Voice, but its desire to withhold was only intriguing up to a point. As such, I felt like I knew what The OA was going to be going in, on the basis that they had a track record in being wilfully elusive and ambiguous (in Sound of My Voice, Marling plays a cult leader professing to hail from the future); essentially, they’re doing exactly the same thing here, with just enough uncertainty that you can get 40+ pages of IMDB comments running the gamut from adoration, to indignation, to trying to pin down just what it’s all about (which is only worthwhile if you leave the show actually invested in what you’ve just watched, and which anyway is a hiding to nothing; this is not Lost, although some of its aspects are indebted to that show).


One of those comments reference “deepism” as a malady suffered by Marling and Batmanglij, a phrase I hadn’t come across before, but which does feel like it has some bearing on The OA. There’s an essential banality to their repeated “message”, regarding the fallacy of faith in an intangible force, of the portrait of those who are caught up in such beliefs as people with holes in lives; something missing, damaged, leading to a need to believe in something more than themselves (the rationalisation for anyone who embraces anything outré, that excludes them from being ascribed “normal” behaviour). This is less-than-profound-but-struts-that-way posturing is why the show has been garlanded with the kind of empty-headed applause The Slate gives – “The OA is less a story about a myth than it is a story of how myth is made, and our collective, almost primordial need to tell stories that bring us together, bind us, and give us meaning. The OA suggests the sublime exists not in some ethereal realm, but rather in the people around us”: now, that’s deepism.


Of course, Marling and Batmangli have succeeded in igniting exactly the impulse they attempt to critique in “followers” of the show. On one level, The OA feels like a rebuke of the Damon Lindelof school of storytelling, where exactly the type of mysteries he shows to be “real” through deliciously gripping twists and turns of plotting (the conclusions are something else, but you can’t have everything) are shown to be anything but. On another, the show is utilising exactly Lindelof’s approach to inflate nothing (or something very slim) into something – focussing on a different member of the Five each episode is the very technique that kept Lost moving through limited plot progression, and which hampered its first few seasons (but it’s worth emphasising that the series had a far more impressive grasp on character; most of those in The OA get short shrift).


So yes, The OA leaves it to you the viewer to decide if Prairie is telling the truth or spinning a yarn (one that she may believe), and as such the takeaway may be contrasting stimulation or ambivalence (or enragement). Marling actually went there and said “our interpretation is less important than the audience’s”. Yes, she said that. Ten out of ten for unbridled pseudishness. For me, it leads to a boy who cried wolf scenario. I’m unmoved by the prospect of a second season; they don’t need to bait that hook because I’m not swallowing (I’ll gladly eat humble pie if they turn the show into something tangibly gripping beyond its most evident theme, but I’d suggest that ship has sailed and, indeed, had no cargo in the first place).


Because, more than the manner in which it resolves itself (or doesn’t), I’m not hugely sold on the storytelling. There’s some very good acting in the show – Phyllis Smith, Alice Krige, Patrick Gibson, Emory Cohen – but Marling’s drippy moonbeam performance wears thin quickly. It’s a leap I never really made to believe the Five would willingly choose to go and listen to Prairie tell a tall story every night, most likely because of this, but maybe also because its insufficiently motivated, smacking of the kind of thing that only happens in a story, along with where it all leads, to the unwittingly hilarious conceit of foiling a high school gunman (a cheap device if ever there was one) through the power of interpretive dance. In fact, it’s all so unlikely, maybe this too is a tale told by an unreliable narrator.


Ah yes, the interpretative dance. A term I’m using principally because it’s instantly what I recognised it as, but also because Batmanglij objects to it so much, believing it rude to the art form; I’m a proud vulgarian, in that case. He expects more from “serious people”. Really? You need to get a grip, Zal. Such a response certainly explains why his creative projects are so earnestly po-faced. I know the climax is supposed to be powerfully stirring (again, the execution, right down to the surging, euphoric music, is very Lindelof), but if falls on its face, plunging headlong into the realm of farcical.


And that’s not mentioning other unlikely turns of plot, such as Hap leaving Prairie at the side of the road when he has no real idea what effect her loss will have on the experiment (of course, the answer, if it’s in her head, is that the narrative demands it, just like the answer, if it is in some respect true, is that the contrived convenience of the box full of books derives from Riz Ahmed planting them there for someone who goes looking under beds to find). And then there’s the fact that the show is desperately lacking a sense of humour that might soften the blow of its concerted self-importance.


The idea of researching NDEs as Hap does is so extravagantly Frankensteinian, it would likely have benefited from a less naturalistic telling, but as it is, the only part that really held sway was Jason Isaacs’ confrontation with a similarly mad professor-ish associate; Marling’s reductive analysis of the NDE experience (“They draw something that often exists in our unconscious mind and brings it to the surface”) suggests she isn’t really fascinated with the phenomenon per se, particularly since the whole thing is but a conceit (to enable “a reflection on trauma and recovery”, as Vulture puts it, and to which she readily agrees), meaning the aspects of the premise with the most potential become the most disappointing in execution. Give me Flatliners any day (well, probably not the forthcoming remake).


Oh, and I have no idea why The OA keeps getting compared to Stranger Things, other than that people had no frame of reference and both were made by Netflix. It may as well be compared to The Crown. After all, both are either made by people or feature characters with an unassailable sense of self-importance.


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

Comments

  1. I finished watching this today. It was a struggle in a lot of places, far too full of its own importance. The dance routine parts just made me laugh, I'm afraid, and the faux-profundity left me cold. In the end, I couldn't work out what part we were meant to believe and which parts we weren't (and which resulting plot holes that meant thinking about), and sadly I didn't really care either. Some of the supporting performances were good, I'd have liked to spend more time with those characters than the 'Angel' (ffs).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, "far too full of its own importance" about sums it up.

      Delete

Post a Comment

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…

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…

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

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.

It is the greatest movie never released, you know.

They'll Love Me When I'm Dead (2018)
(SPOILERS) They'll Love Me When I'm Dead, Morgan Neville's documentary on the making of Orson Welles' long-gestating The Other Side of the Wind, is much more interesting than the finally finished article itself, but to be fair to Welles, he foresaw as much as a possibility. Welles' semi-improvised faux-doc approach may not seem nearly as innovative nearly fifty years on – indeed, in the intervening period there's a slew of baggage of boundary-blurring works, mockumentaries and the whole found footage genre – but he was striving for something different, even if that "different" was a reaction to the hole he'd dug himself in terms of bankability. On the evidence of the completed film, he never quite found the necessary rhythm or mode, but the struggle to achieve it, as told here, is fascinating.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Have you ever looked into a goat's eyes?

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
(SPOILERS) There was probably an insightful, sensitive movie to be made about the World War II experiences of conscientious objector Desmond Doss, but Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge isn’t it. It’s unsurprising that a number of reviewers have independently indulged the wordplay Hackneyed Ridge, an effective summation of the ridiculously over-the-top, emotionally shameless theatrics Mel indulges, turning a story that already fell into the “You wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t true” camp into “You won’t believe it anyway, because it’s been turned up to 11” (and that’s with Gibson omitting incidents he perceived to be “too much”, such as Doss being shot by a sniper after he was wounded, having given up his stretcher to another wounded man; certainly, as wrung through Mel’s tonal wringer, that would have been the case).

Perhaps Mel should stick to making subtitled features, the language barrier diluting the excruciating lack of nuance or subtlety in his treatment of subject m…

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 …

What if I tell you to un-punch someone, what you do then?

Incredibles 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Incredibles 2 may not be as fresh as the first outing – indeed, certain elements of its plotting border on the retread – but it's equally, if not more, inventive as a piece of animation, and proof that, whatever his shortcomings may be philosophically, Brad Bird is a consummately talented director. This is a movie that is consistently very funny, and which is as thrilling as your average MCU affair, but like Finding Dory, you may understandably end up wondering if it shouldn't have revolved around something a little more substantial to justify that fifteen-year gap in reaching the screen.