Skip to main content

So, um... You think we can get to the Moon?

Hidden Figures
(2016)

(SPOILERS) The second biggest hit (worldwide) out of this year’s Oscar nominees, Hidden Figures seems to have stuck around in theatres the longest, perhaps because of its “educational” content. This tale of NASA’s black female mathematicians is the kind of movie mind instantly goes to when looking for an example of palatable Oscar fluff (see also A Beautiful Mind), socially progressive but entirely without a spine, the kind of movie you come away from thinking all is good with the world, as we’re all heading in the right direction. It’s banal, aspirational and inoffensive (unless you find its very inoffensiveness offensive).


Theodore Malfi posits his trio of protagonists in a struggle against, and victory over, prejudice, reaching its climactic moment when nice liberal Kevin Costner (who fits these kinds of roles like a glove: paternal, upright, firm but fair, just the kind of white guy you want singlehandedly striking a huge win for the civil rights movement) goes to it against the “Colored Ladies Room” sign. Never mind that in reality Katherine Johnson (Taraji P Henson) had been using the whites’ toilets all along, or that segregated areas had been abolished by NASA by 1961; it’s symbolic, see? And provides some solid lavatorial humour as she has to continually make herself scarce to trek to the other side of the compound to take a leak.


The argument would be that, even if NASA wasn’t quite so institutionally racist by 1961, other places were, so it’s fair game. Which I can see, but you do rather get the sense the deck has been so loaded on this one by screenwriters Melfi and Allison Schroeder as to make it slightly risible. After all, another big bone of contention is Kirstin Dunst’s hard-ass boss refusing to give Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) a promotion to supervisor; Vaughn actually held this role from 1948.


It isn’t the lack of fidelity to the truth that makes Hidden Figures a mediocre movie, though – The Right Stuff is also entirely laissez-faire with the facts, and that’s a classic –  it’s the relentless, shameless button-pushing that these alterations service. And the safe, cosy view of progress that puts this in territory not a million miles from Driving Miss Daisy. The level of cloying, feel-good sentiment ought to make any discerning viewer involuntarily gag. When Mary Jackson (Janelle Monae) opines that, as a Negro woman, she doesn’t stand a chance of being accepted into the engineering programme (which that actual Jackson joined in 1958), she is told, as an illustration of just what is possible at NASA, institution of realised dreams, “And I’m a Polish Jew whose parents died in a Nazi concentration camp”. Which is about as Hollywood Screenwriting 101 as it gets.


But, for the first half of the movie, before the “drama” of John Glenn’s spaceflight rather defeated me, it was easy to get carried along with the relentlessly upbeat triumph-through-perseverance plotting (accompanied by a mawkish score from Hans Zimmer, Pharrell Williams and Benjamin Wallfish, one that lifts the far superior L’Enfant by Vangelis, to my ear anyway).  Al Harrison’s line “Here at NASA, we all pee the same colour”, the stuff of a thousand banner articles, was the one that did for me, actually, in retrospect.


No complaints about the cast, though, except that Glen Powell simply isn’t Ed Harris, so cannot be John Glenn. Henson and Costner take the honours for how resolutely appealing they are, while Dunst and Jim Parsons are solid as the obstinate obstacles to progress who either learn (or think they do) or bring a climactic cup of atoning coffee.


Perhaps it should be a comforting sign that this kind of free-flowing syrup seems to have eternal staying power, but I’d rather watch a quality documentary on the subject any day than something as synthetically complacent as Hidden Figures.


This was the last of this year's Best Picture Nominees I got around to seeing, so for the record my ranking is as follows:

Manchester by the Sea

Hell or High Water 

La La Land

Arrival

Moonlight

Lion

Fences

Hidden Figures

Hacksaw Ridge

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?