Skip to main content

You've still got some shoot in your boot.

The X-Files
11.3: Plus One

(SPOILERS) Chris Carter inadvisably picks up the pen again but fortunately has slightly more of a grip than in the opener, aided by director Kevin Hooks showing a surer hand than is probably deserved. Plus One is a solid, uber-traditional episode, thankfully devoid of the risible histrionics of My Struggle III, but lacking a sufficiently arresting central mystery to hold the attention.


Scully: I’ve never heard of suicidal mass hysteria.

It might have been more interesting if some diabolical scientist had been testing a super drug, as intimated by the nightclub opening – a classic X-Files teaser in which Arkie Seavers (Jared Ager-Forster) witnesses his doppelganger, flees, and promptly ends up in a car wreck. Carter instead opts for the machinations of twins Little Judy Poundstone and Little Chucky Poundstone, both played by Karin Konoval (veteran of earlier episodes Clive Bruckman’s Final Repose and Home, as well as Maurice in War for the Planet of the Apes, but not fooling anyone as Little Chucky). Judy’s in a psychiatric hospital, Chucky at large, but their games of psychic hangman are causing a noticeable depletion to the local populace, eventually taking in Dana and Fox as potential casualties.


Dean Cavalier: What should I do?
Mulder: Stay off the Interstate?

Carter’s conceit put me a little in mind of the more overtly comedic Fight Club, which also featured “twins” spreading mayhem. But once established, there’s little here to really pique the interest here, aside from “demon” Judy flinging dookie at Dana (evidently inspired by The Green Mile) and telling her “You’re all dried up”, like she’s engaging in Exorcist-lite taunts. Which leads to crisis of confidence in Scully, which hastens Mulder (lest we forget, Anderson’s not far off a decade younger than Duchovny) to comfort her in a manner ill-advisedly rekindling their romance. Did you not know to quit while you were behind with that one, Chris?


This is at least is played with reasonable conviction, Mulder keen to have at it – they share a room and he continually wakes her in the middle of the night, but for work rather than anything else on his mind – and Scully reticent of getting mired in the whole thing again. And the episode does better than most at playing up their by now past-rote opposing philosophical angles, she denying her doppelganger as it haunts her in the back of a car, while Fox responds to her theorising “I wouldn’t rule out ghosts… Of course, there are ghosts”.


Mulder: The world is going to hell, Scully. The President working to bring down the FBI along with it.

The resolution of the yarn is of the disappointingly undramatic 42-minutes-is-all-we’ve-got-so-wrap-it-up-quickly variety, with the twins helpfully doing for each other, meaning that, aside from quips and dookie ducking, there’s little substantive for the FBI agents to do. And regarding their chosen careers, since when was Mulder the type to worry about the fate of the FBI? If anything, he saw it as a necessary evil, enabling him to pursue his vocation and be paid for it. Suddenly, he and Scully are worrying about their future with the agency (and he’s only been back there a couple of years, miraculously invited to return after years off the grid). Why? Because Trump, obviously. It’s tiresomely par for the course on Carter’s part.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.