Skip to main content

They’re a normal condition of the planet. They’re just not part of our consensus of what constitutes physical reality.

The Mothman Prophecies
(2002)

(SPOILERS) Movies tackling renowned supernatural or folkloric themes are prone to satisfy no one. Most certainly not the devotees, for whom the key features are inevitably dumbed down or simplified. And more than likely not a general audience either, since despite all available concessions, attempts to convert such material into an accessible narrative still fall short. I remember seeing The Mothman Prophecies at the cinema and being unmoved by Mark Pellington’s snoozefest, the occasional atmospheric moment or two aside. Revisiting the film, I wonder if I might have given it too much credit.

Pellington came on board after Carl Franklin had fallen out. As Bob Rickard reported it, Pellington was interested in the problems of objectivity that confront the investigator – John Keel, of course, in the 1975 book, here reconfigured as Alan Bates’ Alexander Leek – “when he loses detachment and becomes personally involved in the unfolding drama”. Which could make for a good movie; on numerous occasions, rewatching the picture, I imagined a David Lynch take on the material. But the effect on Pellington’s picture – who had earlier delivered the smart little paranoia thriller Arlington Road, all about the subjective lens – is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Pellington, from a screenplay credited to Richard Hatem, fashions a narrative focusing on Washington Post journalist John Klein (a typically somnambulant Richard Gere), sucked into the strange goings-on in Point Pleasant, West Virginia following the death of his wife. According to Rickard, Pellington “told me that previous scripts of Keel's book were too literal. He was more interested in the psychological predicament of the witnesses than in making a film about UFOs or an alien creature and so rational or materialistic explanations are glossed over. In the film, Klein is tormented by the death of his wife from a brain tumour. Before she died, she had visions of a sinister shape with glowing red eyes, but even the pragmatic reporter cannot accept that all the witnesses are afflicted with similar tumours”.

Consequently, the movie gives us a predominately passive protagonist who roams around Point Pleasant aimlessly, occasionally offered moral support from Laura Linney’s police officer and lent a conviction that something very strange is definitely going on by a reliably unhinged Will Patton. Plus: strange voices on the telephone, foretold events and slips of time. None of it remotely coheres in a gripping or even mildly arresting manner. Pellington’s unable to locate any glue to bind his story, because he’s already decided that the story’s most salient feature – the literal, or treating it as literal – isn’t interesting.

I suspect The Mothman Prophecies needed to be treated as a historical document to lend it substance and a through line. It could still have exhibited the most important element to Pellington, that of psychological impact, but without the extraneous Hollywood baggage of Gere grieving over a lost Debra Messing, and the redundant crutch of Linney’s understanding shoulder. As told, all the elements Pellington chooses to include from Keel’s account – the Mothman visions, predictions that come true, ones that don’t, the bridge collapse, the marvellously named Indrid Cold – lack any impact because, in isolation, without the “fact” of them, they’re meaningless. Or worse still, translate as rather minor and pedestrian. There were common criticisms at the time of its release that The Mothman Prophecies wasn’t so far from an X-Files, and that’s very much what we have: a feature-length episode that has loses its bearings on the essential, uncanny lure of Keel’s book, so leading to a generic and forgettable – and dull – piece of work.

The late, great Robert Anton Wilson covered The Mothman Prophecies (the book) in Cosmic Trigger Vol.1 – The Final Secret of the Illuminati. He commented on a series of significant elements – crucial ones, one might argue, if one is to do the story justice – that Pellington ignored. Elements such as: cattle mutilations, UFO sightings (more than a hundred) and abductions, poltergeist activity in farms, and appearances by the ubiquitous Men in Black. All that besides the seventy or so appearances by Mothman himself.

Pellington offers no sense of the “contagious hysteria” around Point Pleasant during 1968, and because the film is set in the present, he inevitably omits the fascinating predictions that are a key note of the case. As described by Wilson, these include Robert Kennedy being in danger in a hotel kitchen, the Pope being stabbed while visiting the Middle East, and a nationwide power failure on December 24 at noon. We know the veracity of the first one. The Pope wasn’t stabbed in the Middle East, but he was stabbed in Manila a year later. And while the power outage failed to materialise, a bridge collapsed in West Virginia on that same date, killing more than a hundred people.

Keel’s response to the bridge tragedy was “They knew this was going to happen… They just didn’t want me to warn anyone”. He fashioned the non-exclusive term ultraterrestrials for these “malicious and vicious” entities “existing on the borderland between matter and energy, or reality and dream, and regards them as mischievous, deceptive, often dangerous, and likely to produce mental illness in those who insistently try to communicate with them” (as Wilson with Miriam Joan Hill noted in Everything is Under Control). Wilson comments that Keel’s description isn’t so far from the traditional notion of “demons”, while throwing a scrap to the multiverse theory that these entities might have been telling the complete truth, but for a different universe to the one Keel experienced. Keel, meanwhile, very cogently expressed the idea that these ultraterrestrials – he might as aptly have called them Archons – thrive on belief, and the more people who believe in UFOs, the more they “can manipulate people through false illumination”; “This was the feedback, or reflective effect”.

This is, of course, fascinating territory, and not a million miles from Pellington’s stumbling thesis. Wilson further recognises Keel’s point that “major UFO flaps have this penumbra of magick and surrealism about them, usually ignored by both sceptics and ardent believers in the ETH (extraterrestrial theory)”. Whether a coherent movie could be made from such subject matter is debatable, though, as you’re inevitably taking a deep dive into very dense concepts, ones resistant to anything less than an involved seminar or essay. I suggested Lynch, but perhaps prime Olive Stone, in JFK mode, could have pulled it off.

Pellington’s approach offers the title (which likely enabled it to gross as much as it did, but nothing more) but resists shies away from the meat. Indrid Cold is there, but he isn’t from Lanulos. The investigator becoming the focus for the strange is there, but thanks to Gere’s undiscerning presence, the character entirely lacks edge and drive. The bridge disaster features, and is technically impressive, but it simply serves as a means for heroic Gere to save Linney. It’s no coincidence that the best parts of The Mothman Prophecies are those featuring Bates and Patton; the proceedings pick up briefly, but unfortunately, not for long enough to build a head of steam. I don’t doubt the project finally got the greenlight off the back of The X-Files’ success, but it arrived at a point when that wave was pretty much done, and could offer nothing to distinguish itself.


Popular posts from this blog

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.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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