Skip to main content

If we don’t stop this thing soon, the whole damn planet’s in trouble.

The Philadelphia Experiment
(1984)

(SPOILERS) There’s an evergreen lure to the Philadelphia Experiment’s mythos, up there with the Bermuda Triangle for “fact-based” mysteries. A movie version would doubtless benefit from a more literal and “plausible” approach, as would many of the rumoured alt-science ventures of WWII. What we got was much more basic, but the premise itself goes a long way. So much so, it helped mask the movie’s relative averageness at the time of its release – at least, for someone who lapped up the possibility that it was based on an actual event. And we should probably grateful The Philadelphia Experiment is as serviceable as it is; after all, director Stewart Raffill closed out the decade with Paul Rudd’s star-making turn in Mac and Me.

The most engaging aspect of The Philadelphia Experiment is the chicken and egg of the time-travel plot, even if it isn’t entirely clear when it was hatched. Certainly, it wasn’t part of Charles Berlitz’s 1979 book The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility that made the story famous, despite the garbled account of Carlos Miguel Allende’s letters found on the Wiki page. The basic lore concerns an experiment at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in 1943 with the objective of rendering the USS Eldridge invisible; it duly vanishes and reappears in Norfolk Virginia before returning to Philadelphia. Some of the crew have disappeared, some have gone mad, and five are fused to ship itself.

By the time alleged former crew member Al Bielek surfaces in 1990, time travel has become integral to the “actual” tale. It should be unsurprising then, that as Bielek has it, the movie accurately portrays the basic outline of events. Presumably either through government leaks or osmosis. As told to Richard Scheib, screenwriter Michael Janover takes credit for introducing the time-travel element and finds its incorporation into the greater lore quite amusing (time distortion effects are referenced in Allende’s letters, but nothing of this order).

The bigger boost to the mythology subsequently resulted from connecting the Philadelphia Experiment to the equally speculative but even more uncanny Montauk Project. A rift in time between 1943 and 1983 connects the two programmes. Preston B Nichols and Peter Moon documented their interweaving in The Montauk Project: Experiments in Time, as well as a series of increasingly tenuous follow-up volumes offering slimmer and slimmer pickings.

The Montauk Project succeeded in becoming even more fertile ground for conspiracy lore than the Philadelphia Experiment, ninety-nine percent of which was thrown out the window when Stranger Things (originally titled Montauk) transformed the premise into a kid-friendly, uber-palatable nostalgia fest. You know, rather than portraying the project’s allegedly reprehensible experiments on children.

As related by Moon and Nichols, Duncan Cameron Jr and his brother Edward attempted to turn off the equipment on the Eldridge but could not, because it connected through time to a generator at Montauk operating in 1983. Due to the unsafe electromagnetic field on the ship, they decided their best course of action would be jumping overboard; they fetched up in Montauk in August 1983 (approximately a year before the movie was released).

Similarly to the movie, the brothers then met an engineer from the original project, although their man was scientist John Von Neumann (who took over the project from, of course, Nikola Tesla). Having waited for them since 1943, Von Neumann explained there was a “lock up in hyperspace”. The two men were required to go back and shut the generator off. Again, this sequence of cause-and-effect is very similar to the movie, right down to one of them staying in 1943 and one returning to 1983, even if anything relating Montauk is entirely absent. Plus, obviously, there are also no aliens. As that would be too silly. There’s even crazier material involving Duncan and the measures necessary to ensure his survival after he returned, but I’ll leave you to investigate that for yourself. As for Edward… for various whacky reasons, age-regression techniques were employed to put him into a body in the Bielek family. Thus, he became known as Al. Al, who grew up, worked on the Montauk Project and then began to get his memories back.

Their contributions to the legend have snowballed into something of a cottage industry. In tandem with which, rather lurid and unsavoury stories have attached themselves to several of those alleging involvement in these alleged events, none of which does their credibility (provide you were credulous in the first place) any favours.

A summary of the various foibles in accounts can be found here (albeit, don’t expect a complete debunk). It is suggested, “only a small group of people believe Bielek and nearly everyone thinks that his stories are based on some truth, but he's exaggerating the truth for personal reasons. This popular opinion seems to be reinforced when Bielek starts remembering things only after having seen the movie ‘The Philadelphia Experiment’”. That’s a fairly thunderous alarm bell, along with doubt having been placed on the claim that he had “Little to no knowledge of it in the past”. Consequently, one might take the view that the director of Mannequin Two: Mannequin on the Move succeeded in inspiring an afterlife for this tale no one could have foreseen at the time of The Philadelphia Experiment’s release.

Bielek may not be alone in citing the movie version as purported fact. John Carpenter, credited as executive producer despite his ultimate lack of involvement in the production, sounds as if he is misremembering the time travel part when discussing his involvement: “I was working on the screenplay for The Philadelphia Experiment, which was one of these urban legend-type stories about a destroyer in World War II that supposedly time travelled and went into a weird warp. It had a great first two acts but no ending, no third act; it was a shaggy dog story that didn’t end. So I struggled with it, but I couldn’t fix it”. (In another interview he called it “Absolute bullshit, but what a great story” and of the third act “A friend suggested the revenge of the crew against the people who put them there, but I thought it was too much like The Fog”).

Joe Dante also had a crack at it: “I was also involved with John at the time on a script he was working on which eventually became The Philadelphia Experiment. He was writing it for Avco Embassy but he only got about 25 pages in when the company started passing it around and offering it to other writers. I started working on the script for that and another for them called Meltdown, which was about an atomic power plant, but then Avco Embassy went under and it was sold to Norman Lear and he decided that he didn't want to make those kinds of movies so The Philadelphia Experiment ended up being made at New World Pictures”. Dante’s final contribution is unclear, but it has been suggested Wallace C Bennett (who gets a story credit) rewrote it; Raffill, despite professing to an extensive rewrite, has no screenplay credit.

As you might expect from New World, The Philadelphia Experiment doesn’t exactly boast lavish spectacle and a sumptuous budget, but Raffill, aided by cinematographer Dick Bush (various Hammers and Ken Russells as well as Phase IV) ensures the picture doesn’t overstretch itself. The experiment (side-) effects, utilising negative images, get the idea of a breach in dimensions across effectively, while the time tunnel realisation of hyperspace does everything it needs to.

The main narrative begins once David (Michael Paré, somewhere between Sly Stallone and Joey Tribiani) and Jim (Bobby DiCico) leap overboard from the Eldridge and arrive in 1983. There, Dr Longstreet (Eric Christmas) is rendering a deserted desert town invisible, and in so doing has created an unstable link between the time periods (“We opened up a hole, Barney. We opened it up, and it stayed open”). David and Jim engage in some pretty basic culture-clash antics, with a wasted Nancy Allen in tow and Jim suffering the worst fallout from their experience. Before long David, having eluded the military, opts to confront Longstreet, and from there it’s a short hop to persuading the sailor to go back and shut down the generator. There are solid bones for a climax there, but they needed finessing and greater intrigue.

If the premise is the star, it isn’t done any favours by bland leads. Despite attempts to prove himself otherwise, Paré was never able to break out from being something of a B-list, more photogenic Stallone. Christmas is good value, though, as is Stephen Tobolowsky in a very early role. Best of the bunch is probably Louis Latham as the older Pamela, emoting with a degree of depth and sincerity on meeting David again that suggests a more resonant take on the material.

One might testify to Raffill getting the drop on the following year’s Back to the Future with the “Reagan is President?” gags, but I’m sure they were percolating in similar form in a variety of places prior to this. It’s so long since I last saw the movie, I caught myself wondering if they dispensed with the memorably grisly sight of sailors fused to the bulkheads, and that the Berlitz book was the first time I’d encountered it. But no, they are there, saved for last.

The Philadelphia Experiment might have laid a claim as ideal fare for a big-budget remake, one that takes or leaves the Montauk side as it deems necessary (taking it would inevitably give rise to controversy, what with the muddied reps of those claiming involvement). That is, if the material didn’t already seem to have been over-plundered at this point, with both a 1993 sequel and a SyFy version in 2012. Perhaps it is best preserved where it is, as part of the early 80s glut of genre fare, hanging on by a slender thread to 70s imaginings of less tangible and more mysterious, occult versions of history.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.