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.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.