Skip to main content

It's shite being Scottish!

Trainspotting
(1996)

(SPOILERS) It’s easy to understand Danny Boyle’s urge to revisit Trainspotting. After all, even given the Oscar garlands for Slumdog Millionaire, he’s probably naggingly aware that it’s where his career peaked creatively. Which isn’t to say he shouldn’t still have known better. How often does good come from returning to old stomping grounds, let alone zeitgeist-defining pictures? Does anyone remember Texasville? If he’d gone back to Trainspotting 10 years on, it would likely have seemed as unnecessary and dismissible as a More American Graffiti or Staying Alive, particularly given the Irvine Welsh sequel novel (Porno) no one was really very fussed by. But having two decades pass, due to the way things have panned out, rather than through planning, T2 Trainspotting has a lure built both into its characters and audience, and in a very different way to reuniting with (say) Indiana Jones after a similar lapse of time: nostalgia.


I’m not one to usually fall for that ploy, not being much of a sentimentalist, but even I recognise how culturally charged the picture was, for better or worse (it had been packaged as such out of the gate, even if its road to the screen showed no such confidence in ultimate success): because it’s a youth film, if you were of a certain age when it was released it carried a certain weight and personality that even another of that era, as defining as it was – but purely in movie terms – lacked (Pulp Fiction). What it also shares with Pulp Fiction, though, is that it’s reception wasn’t a flash in the pan; it boasts justified longevity. Much as I rate Boyle’s predecessor, Shallow Grave – and, in some ways, I’d argue it’s superior: narratively tighter and as relevant to its era while cloaked in genre regalia – Trainspotting casts a much, much longer shadow for immediately obvious reasons. It’s still fresh, vital, awake, very much inhabiting the kind of terrain A Clockwork Orange did two and a half decades earlier, and showing it doesn’t necessarily need a super-young director (Boyle was knocking 40) to spark off the joys and perils of youth.


A Clockwork Orange shares several traits with Trainspotting that, because they’re done so well, make it all look so easy. But, if they were, they’d be done every time. Besides the trappings – that of couture and style, be it bowlers and make-up or heroin chic – the tales are narrated by a charmingly reprehensible anti-hero (this they share with Scorsese’s Goodfellas, and Begbie’s unhinged violence owes a huge debt to that film’s Joe Pesci). Indeed, the confidential, casual, informative relationship the narrator has with the viewer of these pictures is key to their success, even beyond somersaulting visuals and striking soundtracks. And it’s very notable that neither Malcolm McDowell or Ewan McGregor (or Ray Liotta for that matter) ever had a role as good again (before seeing it, I’d have argued that, if T2 didn’t use that device, even without the same propelling energy, it would be hard to consider it of the same stock).


In McGregor’s case, one has to only select his third Danny Boyle collaboration, A Life Less Ordinary (you’d forgotten it? Join the club) to identify where it all went wrong. On the surface, everything that was in their previous two pictures is present and correct – an exuberant, pop sensibility, a hip soundtrack, a winning stylistic confidence – but tonally and narratively it’s entirely at variance. And crucially, McGregor plays a likeable sap. In Shallow Grave (where he’s an entirely unsympathetic character) and Trainspotting, the actor’s feckless charm is used to provide an “in” to his protagonists’ less savoury qualities, and it’s this underling tension that is key to his early rise to fame. It’s something that’s been almost entirely absent from later roles, and (in my opinion) a key to why his stardom has waned to a tepid permanence.


After all, Mark Renton’s a character who, aside from being a no-good junky, directly instigates the chain of events that lead to poor Tommy’s demise (he not only steals that sex video, but also provides him his first hit), steals from his parents, his friends (no matter how convincing he is in justifying his actions), and whose response to the discovery of a dead baby is to cook up. As he says at the end, “The truth is, I’m a bad person, but I’m going to change” (albeit, it is framed with sarcasm: “I’m going to be just like you” as if we are truly any better, a debilitating drug habit aside). And we don’t really believe him. After all, when Renton gave up drugs, he filled the void with a plunge into the realm of rampant capitalism (the picture’s only explicit reference to Welsh’s original timeframe is Thatcher’s “There was certainly no such thing as society”), suggesting whatever is corrupted, gnawing at Renton’s soul will take some fixing. He has a conscience, undoubtedly, but not an insurmountably troubled one.


Renton: So, we all get old, and we canna hack it anymore, and that’s it?
Sick Boy: Yeah.
Renton: That’s your theory?
Sick Boy: Yeah.

The above exchange is interesting, as Boyle is almost daring himself with T2 not to fall into step Trainspotting mocked as sadly inevitable. And, even if T2 had been a masterpiece, it’s still a picture that evidences those signs of age and decay. One might say that at least McGregor has carried on making varied movies. Most of his cohorts, Bremner honourably excepted, but then he was never a standard lead, have succumbed to the safety of long-running US series (Johnny Lee Miller, Kevin McKidd, Robert Carlyle), while Boyle’s newly-crowned establishment colours found him flaunting Olympics obeisance which, besides an NHS shout out, saw him accused of promulgating imagery in supplication to the damned tentacular Illuminati.


Sick Boy: The Name of the Rose is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.
Renton: Well, what about The Untouchables?
Sick Boy: I don’t rate that at all.

Regarding Sick Boy’s Connery obsession, I have to disagree with him on a number of counts, such as using box office as proof that his last official Bond stank up the place (“Goldfinger’s better than Dr No, both of them are a lot better than Diamonds are Forever”); if that were so, his cited Thunderball would be a masterpiece (Diamonds are Forever is, of course, the best Connery Bond). As for his dismissal of The Untouchables, I can only assume he also loathed The Last Crusade, since Connery did indeed undergo something of a minor career renaissance at that time. His Connery impression is peerless, however (“Do you shee the beesht ? Have you got in your shights?”), so I forgive him.


The last third of Trainspotting sort-of coasts on the sheer incident-packed delirium of the first hour. John Hodge’s restructuring of Welsh seems deceptively straightforward but is in fact dazzlingly detailed and complex, packing so much into 90 minutes that it’s an object lesson how screenwriting can be, rather than often is. Renton quits smack in the first five minutes and doesn’t take it up again for another 30, during which we experience such marvels as the Worst Toilet in Scotland, Spud attending a job interview and shitting the bed, antics with Kelly McDonald that would get Renton put on a register, and his famous tirade about his home country (“It’s shite being Scottish!”) 


The middle section has the dead baby (“So I cooked up and she got a hit, but only after me”), and the masterful OD sequence (Perfect Day used to sublime effect, and Peter Mullan’s assured cameo as Mother Superior/Swanney). I have to admit, the cold turkey sequence, as feted as it is, doesn’t really have the punch claimed of it; it’s a little too structured and devised in its horror (though McGregor’s performance is entirely dedicated).


But then we reach the final act, with Renton selling real estate, putting up with Begbie, and then Sick Boy (“I can’t believe you did that” When the latter sells his TV) and then getting in on a deal to sell some narratively-convenient (and so lacking the same kind of authenticity seen hitherto) skag. It works, much of it down to the edgy fury Carlyle brings to Begbie, and Renton’s final escape, with the sad Spud looking on, to an unknown but hopeful future overseen by Underworld’s Born Slippy, suggests the false dawns of Britpop and Blairism, the Cool Britannia of which Boyle in his way was a part; the pisstake of Renton’s first arrival in London, to the accompaniment of Ice MC, is a far more fitting summary of the vacuous, queasy fall from grace to come.


Boyle’s technical mastery has never been in doubt, but it’s been employed in the aid of increasingly less-assured material since, be it his broken-backed third acts as delivered by Alex Garland (The Beach – which fractured the McGregor honeymoon – 28 Days Later and Sunshine), or exercises in narrative (127 Hours, Steve Jobs), or simply technique (Trance). He needs to find scripts again that have teeth. But he probably can’t. Because he’s old and canna hack it any more.




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.

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.

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

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

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…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism