Skip to main content

What say we unscrew the lid and see what happens?

The Current War
(2017)

(SPOILERS) If you didn’t know Alfonso Gomez-Rejon’s The Current War had a turbulent history in the editing suite, you’d rapidly reach that conclusion from watching the film. Either that, or assume the director has no idea what he was doing. Aside from an aesthetically inadvisable penchant for low-angle, fish-eye framing, there’s scant design or coherence to Gomez-Rejon’s visual sense; we’re subjected to random cutting (and cutting randomly) from careful compositions to ones bereft of the same, regardless of the requirements of the scene or flow of the overall narrative. As a consequence, it says something for the fascination the Thomas Edison/ George Westinghouse story exerts – their competition for whose electrical system would win out and be adopted en masse – as told by Michal Mitnick that the film is even halfway watchable.

The Current War was first shown at the Toronto Film Festival in 2017, apparently rushed for release, before Harvey Scissorhands announced it was being re-edited. Obviously, he since fell by the wayside and like The Upside, the picture was picked up by Lantern Entertainment (for international release). Weinstein, to put it mildly, was known for his strong-arm tactics with filmmakers, his advice (or diktats) occasionally improving movies, more often simply botching matters. It sounds like Gomez-Rejon ended up with what he wanted here in the end, though, thanks to the intervention of producer Martin Scorsese and a day of reshoots, adding five scenes but also managing to cut the running time by ten minutes… Except that the director’s version really feels like it’s been pared to the bone by a team of injudicious producers set on cutting their losses, often haring through scenes without finding time to breathe yet failing to create the – doubtless – intended sense of accompanying narrative urgency. It’s often closer to a passive, Cliff Notes account of these duelling AC/DC electrical systems.

Indeed, during the early part of The Current War, there’s a continuing problem with focus. And when focus isrecovered, it’s by way of the decision to frame this most significant of modern age advances (the advent of electrical power, available in every home) in the context of its most depraved side effect (its use in enforcing the death penalty). It may be factually accurate, but in emphasis, it translates as not a little hackneyed; can you have a clumsier metaphor for the amorality of scientific advance, particularly when Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch) himself is pulled up for his hypocrisy (pronouncing he’d never use electricity for the purposes of war, he then goes all out to prove rival Westinghouse’s alternating current is deadly).

It’s curious that the Deadline piece cites areas of the early cut the director was dissatisfied with – principally “Edison came off as a narcissist and… Westinghouse too classy a gentleman to get in the mud with him” – since they’re also true of the released film. And I don’t know in what reading Edison can be called the hero of the piece (Bekamambetov below), as he’s consistently pig-headed and unwilling to listen to the advice of his devoted secretary (Tom Holland), or Tesla, and confesses unapologetically to his taking credit for the inventions of others.

Cumberbatch is fine, if bombastic and possessed of the usual iffy American accent. There are scenes that succeed in lifting Edison’s story, such as his wife’s brain tumour being misdiagnosed and the effect on him of her subsequent loss, that draw a less clumsy parallel (than execution) with her husband’s inability to recognise how his professional choices are off beam. The moment of grieving, when his son taps a message in Morse Code onto his father’s shoe and he taps one back is also resonant. And there’s a closing scene with Westinghouse where Edison describes the breakthrough of a longer-lasting filament that represents a tantalising acting showcase, where the wonder of such advances is fully captured, but such moments, due to the choppy nature of the proceedings, are few and far between.

There’s also the problem that Westinghouse and Tesla are simply more engaging characters. Michael Shannon gets a rare chance to play sympathetically, while Hoult steals the show as the mannered, precise eccentric Brainiac Tesla; I spent most of the time he was absent from the screen willing the picture to hurry up and get on to Westinghouse employing his services. Unfortunately, Nikola’s dreams of untold scientific advances are only briefly touched upon (a nod to wireless power and the Wardenclyffe Tower, besides the more concrete Niagara legacy).

It’s notable that Timur Bekmambetov had been interested in the telling the story from Tesla’s point of view but “I realised that Tesla wasn’t the hero, because he was a bit of a trickster. Edison was the great character here”. Which sounds a little like he thought it would be too much effort, since there’s a lot more murk and intrigue surrounding Tesla’s mercurial character, to a degree that invites criticism for engaging in anything leaning towards the conspiratorial interpretation of his work and inventions. The extent to which Tesla’s a trickster is the extent to which the biographer in any medium has to find a means of portraying him that tackles his more elusive and less mainstream scientific theories; much easier to push him to the fringes as an eccentric magician (The Prestige).

There’s a scrappy quality to The Current War that suggests Gomez-Rejon is putting a brave face on a disappointing project. But who knows, perhaps he’s genuinely proud of it; his directorial career has been patchy at best. Either way, the production values are very variable, with a soundtrack that is often murky, rendering conversations sometimes unclear. On the other hand, the score from Hauschka and Dustin O’Halloran, while occasionally intrusively smothering, strives to add a unity and continuity lacking in the overall edit, lending The Current War an emotional and contemplative texture that is at times reminiscent of Philip Glass. With subject matter so ripe with potential, it’s a shame this ended up merely passably effective.


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.

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.

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…

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.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

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.

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 is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

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.