Skip to main content

There’s a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it’s not about who’s got the most bullets. It’s about who controls the information.

Sneakers
(1992)

(SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen Sneakers since its original cinema release, when I pegged it as a likeable but ultimately rather too amiable conspiracy yarn. I mean to say, conspiracy yarns can be a lot of things – straight thrillers, satires, outright comedies – but you don’t usually associate them with amiability. After reading a recent Birth Movies Death piece singing its praises, I thought it might be time to give the picture another look, to see if I’d confess to a glowing reappraisal. Unfortunately, no. It’s the same rather amiable, well-made-but-slight piece.


Director Phil Alden Robinson was coming off the high of surprise sleeper hit Field of Dreams, and his co-writers Lawrence Lasker and Walter F Parkes had WarGames on their résumés, so you wouldn’t be misplaced to expect good things here. But the screenplay, concerning a group of A-Team/Mission: Impossible security experts paid to break into corporations to test their systems, who are set on the trail of a super-powerful piece of hardware (a black box that can instantly hack any computer system), never manages to step up the tension, paranoia or sense of urgency sufficiently; it’s certainly in no danger of troubling lead Robert Redford’s greatest hits in the genre (Three Days of the Condor, All the President’s Men). There are incidents where the pace accelerates, but for much of the time Sneakers is closer to a “caper”, a difficult sub-genre, the likes of which have more recently been explored to mixed results (The Brothers Bloom, Ocean’s 12, Duplicity).


Marty Bishop: I went out for pizza. Then I went to Canada. I was lucky. He wasn’t.

When Marty Bishop (Redford) picks up his fee for a recent job, he explains his profession and adds “It’s a living”. “Not a very good one” replies the teller, as if she has anything to be proud of. For all that the movie offers some sharp lines (most of them courtesy of Dan Aykroyd’s conspiracy-geek Mother) it also nurses sloppy ones of that ilk. The exchange is designed to indicate that Marty’s ideals have been sacrificed, but the superfluous context kills it. Marty, you see, still harbours guilt over the arrest and imprisonment of his friend Cosmo, back in the ‘60s, when both were budding counter-culture reactionaries, hacking in aid of the revolution.


Cosmo: Power to the people, Marty.

But the ‘60s ideal here is rigorously counter culture-lite, in a Big Chill way that makes it all too easy to be at peace with forsaking the opportunities the era held to change the world, most redolently in identifying the Republicans as the bad guys rather than the system as a whole, irrespective of nominal party lines (Marty and Cosmo hijack Republican funds, making a donation to the Black Panthers, while Nixon’s personal checking account is used to fund the National Association to Legalise Marijuana). The picture’s final scene has a news report announcing the Republican National Committee’s bankruptcy, suggesting Marty has returned to his youthful instincts, but in a watered-down movie, it’s a watered-down coda. As he says to Cosmo (Ben Kingsley), “It wasn’t a journey, Cos. It was a prank”, and we’re not sure he doesn’t mean it. The most notable part of the 1969 introductory scene is actually that Mike from Twin Peaks (Gary Hershberger) is playing the young Marty.


Cosmo: The world isn’t run by weapons any more, or energy or money. It’s run by little ones and zeroes, by data. It’s all just electrons… There’s a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it’s not about who’s got the most bullets. It’s about who controls the information What we see and hear. How we work and what we think. It’s all about the information!

Sneakers provides fairly prescient warnings of the way things are (or should that be that we’ve caught up with becoming aware of the way things were, have been and will continue to be?) While the picture is frequently far too rotund and pleased with itself for its own good, it gets a rod up the backside whenever Kingsley assumes centre stage, and his sermon on the way the world works, on how data is king and information is everything, is particularly on point. But do we only think that’s a current development because we’re being told to think it is, by the same manipulators of news who were happy to let things fly when they had total control of the ways and means by which we received information? It’s only when those channels are disrupted that it becomes necessary to intervene and announce redirections in respect of the dangers of “fake news”.


Cosmo: The world changed on us, Marty. Without our help… When I was in prison, I learnt that everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality, but on the perception of reality.

The perception of reality is the key: if enough people can be convinced something is the case, it doesn’t matter whether or not it is the case. A common means of getting, for example, a handy war up and running. A counter ploy, such as now, would be to confuse people over the actual version of events to such an extent they become inured to the news itself. How can you trust any of it? 


When it comes to such overarching, all-consuming control, and the potential to obstruct it, Sneakers might be tellingly revealing of its hero’s (and lead actor’s) tentative relationship to the ideals he once professed:

Cosmo: I might even be able to crash the whole damn system. Destroy all records ownership. Think of it, Marty: no more rich people, no more poor people, everybody the same. Isn’t that what we said we always wanted?
Marty: Cos, you haven’t gone crazy on me, have you?

After all, only a crazy person would want to bring capitalism to its knees, wouldn’t they? And only an ex-radical would be invested ensuring this didn’t happen, while consoling himself that he is just radical enough to vote Democrat. His colleagues, meanwhile, are naturally children of the dollar (“I’m in it for the money. I don’t care if I go to jail”).


Marty: The only thing it would be really good for, is spying on Americans.

The movie almost has an ace up its sleeve when it arrives at the conclusion that the NSA wants the box to eavesdrop on its own population, since the Russians have different codes (the picture, post-Glasnost, is at pains to point out the thawing of superpower relationships and how it’s a whole new world as a result, such that the Russian can’t be trusted not to go to FBI with information; thank goodness there isn’t that problem now). Yes, Sneakers nurses the notion that East v West isn’t all a great charade, and also limits its foresight to merely the surveillance of competing agencies (the CIA, FBI) and the Whitehouse, the potential for spying on every single American being but a mere twinkle in the Internet’s eye at the time.


Whistler: I want peace on Earth and goodwill to all men.
Bernard Abbott: We are the United States government! We don’t do that sort of thing.

But this is a picture with a nice NSA, headed up by nice Mr Earl Jones indulging the team’s list of demands (“Tahiti is not in Europe”), where a cute NSA chick is instantly enough to overcome one’s resistance to the corrupt system (provided River Phoenix’s Carl gets her phone number), where the ex-CIA guy (Sidney Poitier’s Donald Crease) didn’t leave the agency out of disillusionment but over issues with his temper. The corrupt, devious NSA of the opening acts is a deception, and so Marty’s slur on them (“You know, I could have joined the NSA. Then they found my parents were married”) is revealed as unwarranted. 


Marty: So what’s the codebreaker?
Whistler: No, it’s THE codebreaker.

The picture ambles along, giving the impression that it’s smart, but not that smart, offering rudimentary ploys (Setec Astronomy anagram revealing an anagram of “Too many secrets”, Marty amazingly being able to recall distinct sounds on his journey in the boot of a car, such that David Strathairn’s Whistler can get a fix on where he was taken). However, it does occasionally come together nicely. 


The scene of activating the black box can in no way equal the dark thrill of Matthew Broderick initiating the countdown to thermo-nuclear war in WarGames, but it is nevertheless effectively realised (“Anybody want to shut down the Federal Reserve?”, asks Whistler, of the National Power Grid, “Anybody want to blackout New England?”, and then the air traffic control system). As MacGuffins go, it’s pretty much the dream ticket (“There isn’t a government on this planet that wouldn’t kill us all for that thing”), but Robinson fails to milk it for maximum suspense, which is a pity.


And the sequence in which Liz must go on a date with Werner Brandes (a masterfully improvising Stephen Tobolowsky: “Shall I phone you, or nudge you?” he asks of the prospect of a second date, and later, cooking at his flat, “I’ll be with you, just as soon as I’m finished pounding these breasts”) is a structurally pleasing marriage of comedy and tension as she attempts to record Werner saying the various necessary words to activate his voice recognition codes and key card (in order to break into Cosmo’s offices). Later, there’s a crowd-pleasing scene in which blind Whistler comes to the rescue, driving a van via Marty’s directions like a less fatuous version of See No Evil Hear No Evil.


Marty: Where did you get 50 bucks?
Carl: I took it from Mother’s wallet.
Marty: Good.

The ensemble work well together, with Phoenix picking up a stress-free cheque in his pre-penultimate (completed) movie and Redford resting confidently on his easy charm (he’s been working a lot as an actor recently, but at the time he was making few movies, and his star appeared to be on the decline, as Havana had evidenced). 


The most consistently enjoyable part of Sneakers comes from the sparring between Poitier and Aykroyd, though, the former infuriated by the latter’s endless torrent of conspiracy theories, ranging from HAARP-esque control of the environment (“Now what are you saying? The CIA caused the Managua earthquake?”) to fake news, to alien contact: “It’s part of the same system that NASA used with the faked Apollo moon landings. Yeah, the astronauts broadcast around the world from a sound stage at Norton Airforce Base in San Fernando in California. So, if it worked for them, it shouldn’t give us any problem”. And:

Mother: But the key meeting took place in July 1958 when the air force brought a space visitor to the White House for an interview with President Eisenhower. And he said, hey, look, give us your technology, we’ll give you all the cow lips you want.
Donald: Honey, don’t listen to this man, He’s certifiable.
Mother: Your husband knows about cattle mutilations. He’s ex-CIA.



Apparently, NBC is developing TV series based on Sneakers. Which might be a good idea, if it tries to be nothing like the movie. On the other hand, it might find itself struggling to be relevant unless its willing to fly ahead of the curve (and for NBC, that’s unlikely). The film certainly has that winning “all about family” thing going for it (“I have a new group of gifted children now, and I like the fact that they’re under 30” says Liz to Marty at one point). Sneakers’ problem is that it’s too damned relaxed, to damn comfy with itself. A G-rated movie with swearing added to make it not seem like a kid’s picture. Which says it all. It’s too nice.



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.

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.