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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for