Skip to main content

A miracle without proof is only a miracle.

Medicine Man
(1992)

(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I really buy John McTiernan’s description of Medicine Man as “a little art movie with Sean Connery”. Sure, the Sean Connery bit (now just turned ninety, but then a fresh-faced sixty-one). But you don’t make little art movies that pay their lead $10m (and a $40m price tag – or $27m as McTiernan tells it – is only relatively little if you’re not expecting to do solid business). But yes, the movie was mis-characterised as an action movie. Even though that decision is understandable, as it doesn’t comfortably fit into any bracket.

Back in 1992, McTiernan was one of my favourite directors, up there with James Cameron and Ridley Scott. Albeit, very much on the basis of Predator and Die Hard rather than The Hunt for Red October, which I found mildly disappointing. Consequently, I made sure to catch Medicine Man on its opening week. I didn’t hate it, unlike most critics, it seems. Indeed, I found it an agreeable enough if very lightweight time passer, but it was most definitely guilty as charged of cause-based, delusionary Hollywood fare that seems to think it can make a difference from its ivory tower. At least George Miller’s Lorenzo’s Oil – another case of an action director departing from the straight and narrow, although there one who also trained as a doctor – was based on actual case and so had plausibility on its side. Medicine Man had Sean acting as exec producer, for the first time since The Offence, which might sound like an indication of quality given that earlier film, but his producing tag became par for the course during the rest of the 90s, and those movies are not all good ones.

The irony being, Medicine Man is partially based on fact, even that fact has been fed through the Hollywood meatgrinder and consequently bears scant resemblance to the original. If it had used the actual story, it might have been more engaging.

Connery’s sporting a “youthful” ponytail (based on composer Jerry Goldsmith, it seems, although Highlander was his first foray into such rug-with-benefits territory). His sprightly Robert Campbell is in the Amazon rainforest researching a plant-based cure for cancer, but he’s having difficulties replicating what he believes to be positive results. Having asked for a (male) research assistant, the charming old sexist ends up with Lorrain Bracco’s loud, brassy Bronx Doctor Rae Crane. Mutual respect thaws the initially strained relations between them, naturally. Combined with “Bronx” becoming convinced Campbell’s quest is real. Meanwhile, a logging road is encroaching ever more on their jungle idyll.

Connery handpicked Bracco, understandably impressed by her performance in Goodfellas, but she’s nails-on-a-blackboard here – winning a Golden Razzie nom for her trouble. To the extent that she makes Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom seem like the easiest going of female leads. McTiernan and writers Tom Schulman (Dead Poets Society) and Sally Robinson appear to think they presiding over an affectionate homage to the screwball era as chalk and cheese fall for each other, but there’s no whiff of that between the stars. If the picture had managed to get the central relationship right, the lack of substance elsewhere would have been much more forgivable.

At least Connery’s inimitably Connery, and it’s purely coasting on his charisma that keeps the picture watchable. He even inveigles his love of golf into the proceedings, which you have to respect (his devotion to the sanctity of character and avoiding forcing his own proclivities on Campbell).

Chemistry aside, Medicine Man’s major problem is the classic one of a tackling a big issue that hasn’t been resolved (see also Superman IV: The Quest for Peace). Since there is no cure for cancer – at least, officially – we know how Campbell’s quest is going to end, so the movie relies on a false paradigm, one that can only fail to sweep audiences along for the ride. This leads to laborious plot loops in an attempt to sustain itself (“What don’t you understand? I found a cure for the fucking plague of the twentieth century and now I’ve lost it! Haven’t you ever lost anything Dr Bronx?”) When Campbell does get to the bottom of his dilemma, it turns out his precious flower has no “juju”; a species of rare and elusive ant fell into the mix, and so off they go together ant hunting (not having so much as smooched).

It’s a desperately thin narrative thread on which to sustain a movie, and it’s unsurprising that the picture has more juice when Campbell is confronting the loggers and his research station burns down (along with a section of prime rainforest). I mentioned the actual story, and a suit was brought by Dr Wilburn H Ferguson – settled out of court – alleging copyright infringement based on his project Tsanza from 1973. Therein, he charts his own research into a cure for cancer. Unsurprisingly, since it’s widely regarded as a racket, the “Cancer Establishment” refused to endorse or ratify Ferguson’s research. Which makes for a much better story, one of conflict, fighting the odds and hope, even if one is unable to win out in the immediate moment. But let’s face it, you are not going to get a movie made by a major studio suggesting a cure for cancer is out there and that for whatever reason it is being withheld. Even if, as a bonus, it doesn’t include magic ants.

By most reports – Premiere magazine delivered something of a hit piece on the production – the shoot wasn’t a blissful one (“The food was appalling. Everybody got sick. I wasn’t sick only because I drank too much vodka. There’s no relief factor. You couldn’t swim in the water… eat in the town. The noise of insects and wildlife where I had this house was insanity – noises that were Neanderthal, primordial, noises that I’ve never heard anywhere else”). McTiernan, in contrast to Connery, professed “Personally, I enjoyed it. It’s not very often that one gets time outside and still make a living out of it”.

McTiernan seems to have been consigned to permanent directors’ jail due to his penchant for phone tapping, but back then, he was on an unstoppable run (this and Last Action Hero would put a significant dent in that). And if his sensibility isn’t really suited to the picture’s romantic tone (any more than it was the satirical/cartoonish sweep of Last Action Hero), his motives during the production at least appeared to be honourable (“It wasn’t like the movie was going to make $125 million and people were going to walk away with Academy Awards from it. The one thing it might have done was make a number of million people in the world more aware of a problem we all have to face eventually, or pay the consequences for”). By using tribal Indians who had moved to the cities, he ensured the Mexico shoot didn’t make John Boorman’s mistake with The Emerald Forest. Because otherwise “they will be forever changed by the experience of meeting a movie crew. It is, after all, only a movie and there are some moral limits”.

Medicine Man duly stresses not only the perils of deforestation but the threat to indigenous populations, most particularly from western disease when Crane first arrives. In concert with cinematographer Donald McAlpine (Predator), the Mexican rainforest is lush and seductive, and ponytailed Goldsmith’s score soars romantically, even if the content is rather more restrained. The irony is that, for an action director, McTiernan has no idea how to make the material move. There are vistas galore, but it’s down to Connery to sustain any interest, and he can only do so much between golf swings.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?