Skip to main content

I'm going to open an X-file on this bran muffin.

The X-Files
11.2: This

(SPOILERS) Glen Morgan returns with a really good idea, certainly one with much more potential than his homelessness tract Home Again in Season 10, but seems to give up on its eerier implications, and worse has to bash it round the head to fit the season’s “arc”. Nevertheless, he’s on very comfortable ground with the Mulder-Scully dynamic in This, who get to spend almost the entire episode in each other’s company and might be on the best form here since the show came back, give or take a Darin.


Langly: Mulder, I need to know. Am I dead? If I am, they know that I know.

The idea of not only depositing humankind in a simulation but of us also being in one has a lot of currency lately, not least from science itself. David Icke’s very big on the subject, taking his cues from the Gnostics and The Matrix (or is it the other way round?), the former with their “bad copy” take on the antics of the Demiurge. While This doesn’t go as far as suggesting that we’re all in one not-so-great holographic simulation and that the physical universe isn’t remotely physical at all, it does curiously trace out a fleetingly similar – in typically sketchy X-Files fashion – envisaging of future events as the one Anjeliki Anagnostou-Kalogera presents in her Gnostic-influenced Can You Stand the Truth?, where she posits that the end of this simulation is nigh and that there are various plans afoot by the Archons to wrest humanity into a parallel universe when this one ends (that universe itself having only very finite time available, this attempt to stave off the inevitable end of everything that is not part of the “Hyper Cosmoi”). Why, she even brings in ETs, but as the old humanity from the future (or parallel universe).


Mulder: I was gone back then. Could Langly be alive?

In This, Barbara Hershey’s Erika Price (shoehorned into the final reel to create a causal link with the rest of the season, exactly as successfully as that sounds) announces that life on Earth is about to be crushed, that “The simulation is necessary for our evolution as a species”, and that the means to upload everyone, whether they like it or not, is currently feasible (via a cell phone; I’m sketchy on the efficacy of this, but okay), which will be the state of (most? The select few?) humans when the doomed planet is left behind (as part of space colonisation). It’s unclear quite how this fits in with the plan to wipe out most of humanity (if you can put seven billion in a simulation, the only thing stopping you is that you don’t want to), and in the Gnostic scheme of things, the more humans there are for the Archons to feed off, the better, so that analogy only runs so far.


Langly: It’s a work camp. We’re digital soldiers.

Of course, with The X-Files it’s wise never to get too hung up on the specifics; Langly tells Mulder and Scully that the Elite are using the minds of participants in the simulation to deliver the necessary science in order to leave the planet. Again, this is nebulous. Because they don’t have the tech they need already? I thought that was where the aliens came in?


Langly’s previously unmentioned girlfriend (as if Langly ever had a girlfriend) Karah Hamby (Sandra Holt) informs them that she and Langly theorised when signing up to the project that everything they were told about the simulation might not be true, and wondered, if they were placed in it when they died, “How would that life know it was a simulation?” For Langly, it’s pretty much as The Matrix told us regarding early failed simulations; it’s too perfect, a world where there’s no cancer, where he eats hot dogs and donuts all day, where The Ramones play every night and never fight, and the New England Patriots always lose (whatever the last one means): “I’m begging you, destroy it”. And that “They all hate it here” (the great minds, including Steve Jobs and Michael Crichton, the latter presumably writing hacky virtual pseudo-science airport fiction).


Kara: Maybe he saw Mulder in his dreams.
Mulder: Who hasn’t?

Morgan offers no fake-out realities with this scenario, though, one that seems entirely asking for them (if this had been an JJ Abrams series episode, it would have probably taken place from inside the simulation looking out), aside from a coda in which Langly reappears on his phone (“Mulder! They know what we know. Destroy the back-up”) and the psycho killer Russian shot dead earlier appears on the screen (and being The X-Files, does Mulder leave his friend languishing in favour of a new standalone episode next week? You bet). The lead in to this is rudimentary cobblers, with Mulder escaping Erika, meeting up with Scully and having a fight while she turns off the BIG machine (server).


Mulder: So the Russians who tried to kill us have had access to all our work.

Much of the rest of the material is faintly old hat. The private contractors aspect would have seemed much more topical a decade ago, Purlieu Services being an American contractor with Russian links (Russian links to the government because topical, right? Except that The X-Files is the last show that should be swallowing verbatim that what we’re told is fake news is fake news). Who put the X-Files on line, so know all about them (and deleted some of them).


Added to which, putting Skinner in duplicitous-seeming situations is plain lazy at this point in the run. His impromptu carpark speech, where everyone stops squabbling so he can deliver a spiel about how there are now seventeen US intel agencies, “All of them are in bed with one another while trying to exterminate each other, and that means each of us” at least gives Pileggi something to chew on, but it’s further evidence of this show’s unenviable old git syndrome.


Mulder: He’s dead because the world was so dangerous and complex then. Who’d have thought we’d look back with nostalgia and say that was a simpler time, Scully? Everything we feared has come to pass. How the hell did that happen?

The above is, of course, bunk. It’s the tired refrain of an older generation who should know better, since every older generation responds similarly. Getting agitated in the face of Trump only serves to make the current incarnation of The X-Files seem the more stranded, waving its arms about helplessly while dropping Snowden into conversation because he’s only about five years past being happening.


Mulder: Frohike look 57 to you the day he died?
Scully: Frohike looked 57 the day he was born.

What makes the more egregious aspects of this episode forgivable, however (the trail of clues in Arlington Cemetery is so much nonsense), is the banter between Mulder and Scully. First seen on the couch watching TV, it isn’t long before Duchovny’s doing Californication by way of Beavis and Butthead (“You said taint”) and waxing lyrical after a hard day wrestling bad guys (“Scully, you looked so adorable then. All curled up in a ball in a skanky bar with your fingers wrapped around the grip of our assassin’s Glock”). And he doesn’t get to hog all the good lines either:

Mulder: I’m going to open an X-file on this bran muffin. I’ve got to get to the bottom of why it tastes so freakin’ good.
Scully: I don’t care if it comes out of an alien’s butt. I’m going to eat the whole thing.


Morgan’s an infinitely preferable, more composed director than Carter, even though he has less experience. He should steer well clear of action sequences, however; the opening home invasion mistakes randomly cutting a scene to ribbons for a thrilling shootout. Mostly, though, This is welcome for getting the characters back on track, even as it needlessly rakes over old continuity in the process. Time was you could have a really great episode and really great character work, often from Morgan and Wong. I guess things were simpler then.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

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.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.