Skip to main content

We’re not in a prophecy… We’re in a stolen Toyota Corolla.

Bright
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Is Bright shite? The lion’s share of the critics would have you believe so, including a quick-on-the-trigger Variety, which gave it one of the few good reviews but then pronounced it DOA in order to announce their intention for Will Smith to run for the Oval Office (I’m sure he’ll take it under advisement). I don’t really see how the movie can’t end up as a “success”; most people who have Netflix will at least be curious about an all-new $90m movie with a (waning, but only because he’s keeps making bad choices) major box office star. As to whether it’s any good, Bright’s about on a level with most of director David Ayer’s movies, in that it’s fast, flashy and fitfully entertaining, but also very muddled, mixed-up and, no matter how much cash is thrown at it, still resembles the kind of thing that usually ends up straight to video (making Netflix his ideal home).


Part of that is probably Ayer having little discernible grasp of cinematic style or scale, even when he’s supposedly dealing with epic events (his last two movies). He’s all about the “verité”, intimate character moments, keeping it real, putting his actors through the mill in order to garner “genuine” responses and emotions. All the kind of method nonsense that really counts for something when dealing with the environs of anti-superheroes or magical kingdoms dubiously transposed to an inner-city locale.


Daryl Ward: I need to know if you’re a cop first, or an orc first. I need you to say it.

As other reviews have pointed out, it’s immediately problematic that Ayer and hack screenwriter Max Landis opted to posit angry, violent, belligerent orcs as stand-ins for ethnic minority gangs (not that there aren’t still ethnic minority gangs in the picture); as concessions go, their listening to death metal (orcish music) rather than rap is a thin one and Nick Jackoby (Joe Edgerton) even has to comment at one point that orcs see him as a wannabe human while humans see him as an animal. Having an African American lead showing ignorance towards and intolerance of orc kind was no doubt considered cute, but the reversal seems merely clumsy and doesn’t help with the metaphor, particularly when the whiter-than-white elves (even with Edgar Ramirez as an FBI elf) with their “closed community” area of the city are shown as the one percent. This isn’t exactly subtle.


There are also fundamental problems with world building. Maybe it’s the Alien Nation factor, but I could never get it out of my head that this sharing of realms must somehow have been a relatively recent thing, rather than “coexisting since the beginning of time”. Jackoby being the first orc cop runs with the segregation theme in a very Alien Nation way, while the knowledge of other creatures and supernatural goings-on has the flavour of “we’re hearing about this for the first time”. Everyone wants a wand because it has the potential of offering life changing powers, provided it doesn’t kill you on touch, but if you have a wand, what’s to stop you from simply wielding it take ultimate control (or wielding power for untold good, even)? How many elves have wands, and what do they do with them (being regulated by law and having your wand officially confiscated isn't really going to have much impact if you simply decide to wave it to avoid being detected)? I guess you could carry this over into the one percent analogy, the maintaining of power through magical means, but Ayer and Landis take the premise so literally, channelling it into a functional conspiracy procedural with (unimpressive, design-wise) prosthetic dressings, they’re clearly hoping we’ll just accept the surface detail and respond to the fireworks, no questions asked.


I don’t think anyone familiar with Landis’ mashup output – unless it’s his first produced screenplay, the admittedly very decent Chronicle – was expecting much from this, but Bright is still more serviceable than the likes of American Ultra and Victor Frankenstein. It has certain factors immediately in its favour. Smith, as veteran cop Daryl Ward, is doing a part he’s done before in his sleep – and has clearly been trying to break away from, unfortunately hampered by his ability to recognise a good script when he sees it – age not discernibly wearying him, but it’s an agreeable part, and he’s still a very agreeable screen presence.


I’d swear Edgerton outright studied Mandy Patinkin in Alien Nation, as many of his choices and traits feel like a direct lift (the straight-laced cop, the culture shock comedy of opposites, the deadpan “not getting it” delivery). Edgerton deserves kudos, as like Patinkin before him, he immerses in the part to the extent that you can’t see the actor within. He and Smith have an easy rapport (although I’d wager everyone has an easy rapport with Smith – even Tommy Lee Jones does), even as they go through the motions of every getting-to-know-you macho clichés (you know, trying to be good people, not being brave but doing what you need to do anyway, that kind of shit). Their best interaction doesn’t come until the end, though, as Ramirez interviews the duo, Jackoby spilling every bean and then some while Ward waits patiently to give the official account.


One shouldn’t inflate Alien Nation by the inevitable comparisons, of course. It’s in no way a great movie, even if it had a decent premise (decent enough to spawn a short-lived TV series and a string of TV movies). What it undoubtedly had going for it, though, was that it was much easier to pin down in terms of canvas and concept. Bright has too much potentially going on, creates too many questions, certainly far too many for one of Landis’ negligible high-concept brainstorming (next up, desecrating dad’s An American Werewolf in London, because it has aged so badly, right?) Landis, who previously poured his Wikipedia research on secret government projects into American Ultra, now shows similar perspicacity with “just some illuminati shit”.


That shit being: a plan to resurrect the Dark Lord so he can slaughter billions and enslave the survivors to serve him (why not just enslave everyone? Lack of vision there, that or he’s been studying the Georgia Guidestones). There’s little else to glean in this regard (I’m guessing the Dark Lord himself is saved for the sequel), except that “2000 years ago, magic stopped him, and it will stop him again” and the process, naturally as it's the elite, involves ritual blood sacrifices. This is an alt-world without a Christ figure, but Landis evidently feels the need to include a similarly epoch defining event, albeit rather than the arrival of a saviour it’s the defeat of an enslaver.


Instead of the Dark Lord, we encounter his lieutenant in Noomi Rapace’s Leilah, one of the Inferni, pursuing Lucy Fry’s elf-in-distress Tikka. Rapace is essentially a Terminator elf, with about as much character shading as that description implies. That said, I’m not sure it matters; while she doesn’t have much to say, her entire career has probably been a build-up to eventually playing an elf.


With regard to the half-spun mythology, Ward is, in due course, revealed as a chosen one – a Bright, or wand wielder –  which is kind of inevitable, as Smith doesn’t get any truly great heroic moves in before he goes all magical on Leilah’s ass. But there’s a disconnect to making him super powered. When Keanu goes the full Neo (a role Smith turned down) there’s the thrill of the nobody made special. But Will Smith is already Will Smith; you can’t really boost the guy any higher, as no matter how many special skillz he inherits, his charisma factory will always lead the way (it’s why – controversial, I know – Hancock worked, as Smith’s down-at-heel burnout contrasted effectively with daring feats).


Ayers is at his best – unsurprisingly, given End of Watch is easily his best movie to date – with the rigours and routines and closed ranks of the police force. In particular, the shunning of Jakoby by his fellow officers and Ward’s reluctance to either actively support or denounce him. There are some well-staged and edited sequences, such as Ward deciding he isn’t going to bow to pressure from his peers (“old school “Rampart” shit”) and comes out shooting, but little sticks in the mind overall, any more than with the nocturnal mayhem of Suicide Squad. If his movies keep making money, he’ll no doubt keep making big budget ones, but I don’t think it’s his forte (even ones with big stars that aren’t – like Arnie in Sabotage and Keanu in Street Kings – don’t really play to his strengths). If he wants to tell macho, gritty stories, he should tell down-and-dirty, macho, gritty stories, rather than attempting to foist his sensibility on any old studio material that comes his way.


The first scene in Bright finds Ward’s wife asking him to “Go kill that fairy, please”, her protesting husband eventually going out to the birdfeeder and bashing the offending sprite to death with a broom (“Fairy lives don’t matter today”). It’s played for laughs as representing how casually these unfamiliar elements are assimilated into this world, but the problem is that it’s so clearly a back-engineered gag that pays no attention to coherence (are fairies sentient in this world? If so, Ward casually committed murder to general approval. If they aren’t, are they basically animals – it’s treatment is basically that of a mosquito, as you don’t generally go out and beat garden birds to death – so do people eat fairies? And what do fairies do, apart from consuming bird seed?)


Occasionally, there’s a line suggesting something more (“My ancestors killed them by the fucking thousands in Russia” boasts one office of his family’s aptitude for massacring orcs) and at one point we see a centaur cop on patrol, apropos nothing, but these elements just tend to add to the sense that Landis’ world makes little sense conceptually due to its facile overlay onto contemporary society (what is the elvish equivalent of science – magic? And if so, how would that affect their – and everyone else’s – everyday world?). At least, not if you seriously want to explore it, which Ayer and Landis evidently don’t. One might hope for more care and attention in the sequel(s), but I suspect, given the creative titans involved, it will be equally slapdash. Netflix has made its first blockbuster in Bright, and done it well, to the extent that it’s quickly processed junk food. There’ll be little trace of it in your mind after 24 hours.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

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

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.

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.

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 .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

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.