Skip to main content

It’s a very stressful thing, time travel.

12 Monkeys
(1995)

(SPOILERS) Gilliam goes maximum sell out. And yet, even though this is undoubtedly the soberest and least quirky film in his oeuvre, it’s much, much more satisfying than his Terry-Goes-Tinseltown The Fisher King. 12 Monkeys is the evidence that he could have been – not that I’m suggesting he should have been – an entirely creditable studio director had he taken the bit between his teeth and buckled down. As it is, 12 Monkeys still manages to exude enough of his personality and wide-angle visual sense that you’re never in doubt who is calling the shots, but never to the extent that it gets in the way of its lead character’s emotional journey. Or indeed, the fairly wrought conspiracy plotline at its core.

Of which. Yes, 12 Monkeys is a virus movie. And therefore, to some degree, it needs to be categorised as a piece of predictive programming. And propaganda. The latter in terms of validating and underlining the terrifying potential of this invisible, un-isolatable, pervasively unconscionable threat to our very existences. The former, in similar manner to zombie movies, prepping its audience for the inevitable downfall of society, be that downfall characterised as nefariously engineered or due its own wilful disarray. I don’t necessarily think either of these elements need to be conscious on the part of the makers. Far from it; most of society – and filmmaking is a ready and willing proponent of the same ­– trundles ever onwards, parroting unquestioning fundamentals at every opportunity. Why should Gilliam have doubted viruses exist?

And why would he necessarily have thought an apocalyptic tale was exactly what his masters wanted? Because he’s nominally anti-establishment? Only nominally. He worked for the BBC, after all. And got his own Hollywood agent in time for The Fisher King. He’s only relatively a rebel. He even sports a prominent black eye on 12 Monkeys making-of doc The Hamster Factor and Other Tales of Twelve Monkeys, apparently through a near fatal horse-riding accident on a weekend break from filming. It can’t help but raise an eyebrow, given his next venture would be the adrenochrome-laced Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Even the horse part of the story has resonance, since it would be his first attempt to make The Man Who Killed Don Quixote that killed the stride of his career, with largely unsatisfying subsequent results. And on that, he’s widely reported to have actively participated in the starving of the title character’s horse for reasons of realism. Was that act his subconscious revenge? And then that of the horse’s on his later career?

However keenly or not so the makers were aware of the debatable biology at the root of their concept, 12 Monkeys, through its plays on perception and subjective reality – even if it settles on a concrete version – invites interrogation of accepted truths. James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent back from 2035 – by the looks of things this future’s Agenda 2030/Great Reset didn’t go quite as planned, although the resultant depopulation of rural areas surely amounts to much the same thing – in order to trace the original form of a deadly virus. This will enable scientists in his time to take a “pure” sample.

Title: …five billion people will die from a deadly virus in 1997… The survivors will abandon the surface of the planet… Once again, the animals will rule the world…

Time travel is a loop in David and Janet Peoples’ telling, such that, while there are paradoxes of the Grandfather variety, the essential act cannot be used to change the future; time will conspire to produce the same result, unwittingly illustrated by the behaviour of psychiatrist Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) as she attempts to disprove Cole’s story. In doing so, she becomes an intrinsic part of his future evidence (her phone call and the graffiti clue). Indeed, the best one might say is that, prior to the airport climax, Cole and Railly’s actions obfuscate the future path, leading to a focus on the Army of the 12 Monkeys rather than the actual culprit, Doctor Peters (David Morse).

Notably, great pains are not spent discussing time travel theory in this “Outbreak meets The Terminator”, as one test-audience response put it. That’s likely in part down to Gilliam’s desire to avoid leading his viewers by the nose wherever possible (it’s easy to come away from the movie on first viewing assuming the future scientist is there to save the past; one has to presume they long since realised such attempts are self-defeating).

Jeffrey Goines: You know what crazy is? Crazy is majority rules. Take germs, for example.
James Cole: Germs?
Jeffrey Goines: Uh-huh. In the eighteenth century, no such thing, nada, nothing. No one ever imagined such a thing. No sane person, anyway. Ah! Ah! Along comes this doctor, uh, uh, uh, Semmelweis, Semmelweis. Semmelweis comes along. He’s trying to convince people, well, other doctors mainly, that there’s these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. Ah? He’s trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do you call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, cut to the twentieth century. Last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole. I go in to order a burger in a fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. Jim, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it’s all okay. What about the germs, I say. He says, I don’t believe in germs. Germs are just a plot they made up to sell you disinfectant and soaps. Now, he’s crazy, right. See?

While the bulwark narrative is consistent, if one looks closely enough, there are cracks in it that do give one pause, though. Even with regard to my earlier comment about the makers not necessarily being aware of the “subtext”. Because Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), the looney tunes red herring, is given the not uncommon movie opportunity to voice dismissible truths via the guise of the babbling madman, per above. Now, Jeffrey’s example is slightly misleading, as good hygiene is not a crazy position to advocate (although excessively so, such as currently, is another matter). But his example leads us directly to Pasteur and the mess he made with virus theory, and the contrasting position of Bechamp, who denied Pasteur’s position (reputedly, Pasteur admitted on his death bed that Bechamp was correct).

The false equivalence of equating Semmelweis’ concerns over the health impact of decaying organic matter with virus theory reached its apotheosis in March this year, when he became a Google Doodle in favour of the roundly embraced handwashing scam. Ironic for someone who was not a proponent of contagion in respect of his area of study. Given the scorn Semmelweis’ theories received from his peers at the time, and the scorn heaped on any who don’t toe the party line now (such as advocates of German New Medicine) Goines’ “Ah! Ah! There’s no right. There’s no wrong. There’s only popular opinion” doesn’t seem so lunatic at all.

As noted, the virus – The Hamster Factor footage suggests it’s a Black Death strain – part of the picture isn’t key to its premise, but it’s interesting to see Gilliam and the Peoples’ address the baggage that comes for the ride. During the climax, Cole receives new instructions from Jose (Jon Seda) and realises “This part isn’t about the virus at all, is it? It’s about following orders. Doin’ what you’re told”. It’s difficult not to read in to such a remark in the time of an imminent Great Reset. And Cole being asked “Why do you think there aren’t any germs in the air?” out of context (he’s free to breathe outside in 1990) would be the standard question to any virus denier. If there was any interest in the response.

Railly gives a lecture about the Cassandra complex (complete with claims of time travel) and at the subsequent book signing, following a fan’s hilariously flippant “I’m going right out to get vaccinated”, she is approached by Dr Peters, trotting out the standard tropes of the depopulation agenda – “Surely there is very real and convincing data that the planet cannot survive the excesses of the human race?” He’s Gates if Gates could create a deadly airborne pathogen, one that would also leave him/her standing. Even Cole is up on that plied verdict (“The human race deserves to be wiped out”). Railly, the voice of rationality and reason, has her bedrock belief disrupted in the face of the inexplicable, such that she volunteers at one point, echoing Goines’ ramble about popular opinion, “I mean psychology, it’s the latest religion”.

Gilliam’s future, industrial decay dressed up with absurdist contraptions, is very much in the lineage of Brazil (not for nothing has it, this and The Zero Theorem – not by Gilliam, it must be stressed – been described as his dystopian trilogy). Here, the existence of a virus equals – is an excuse for – a totalitarian, penal regime. Aside from the scientific elite, we don’t see anyone who isn’t a coerced criminal, but it wouldn’t take much to perceive the digital bar codes and implanted tracking devices (“It’s in the tooth”) as endemic. Just the kind of thing they have planned.

David Peoples boasts a strong if sparse pedigree through the likes of Blade Runner and Unforgiven – and er, Salute to the Jugger and Leviathan – giving one the impression he’s a writer who, if his work is left to shine, is rarely bettered (but then you look at Soldier, and know there’s nevertheless alchemy involved). He was inspired by Chris Marker’s La Jetée as a starting point, in which the core is less motivation than self-realisation, of a boy witnessing his own death as a man (there is no virus in the short, and the intention of the travellers is to discover a means of changing the future). In Peoples’ three best-known works, existential crisis is key to the text. The tragedy of 12 Monkeys is that of a deterministic fable, and Gilliam rightly understood that, because of this, everything hinged on the central performance.

James Cole: I am mentally divergent.

Gilliam worked with Bruce and Brad when they were hungry. A few years later, Willis had drifted into stoic – some might say constipated – somnambulance (the line “All I see are dead people” here would be a harbinger). But at this point, he wanted to stretch himself beyond the wisecracking (still his best persona, although it’s increasingly difficult to recall now). There are a couple of movies where he succeeded. 12 Monkeys might may be his best straight performance, certainly his most affecting outside of Die Hard (ironically, he wanted to play Die Hard 2: Die Harder entirely without quips, evidencing typical star vacuity). Cole isn’t that bright, but he’s bright enough (something the character has in common with Butch in the previous year’s Pulp Fiction).

Willis must have bristled that Brad’s cuckoo turn got the most attention, certainly awards wise (The Hamster Factor notes that between Pitt signing on and the beginning of the shoot, both Interview with the/a Vampire and Legends of the Fall had been released). It’s still one of his most interesting performances, showing a dedication to the art his more charisma-led star turns tended to spurn. Stowe is the straight man in all this, navigating a less showy role with consummate skill. Elsewhere, it’s fun to see Frank Gorshin (the Riddler), Simon Jones (Arthur Dent) and Christopher Plummer (who would later reunite with Gilliam for The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus).

Gilliam called 12 Monkeysa study of madness and dreams, of death and re-birth…” and he thus ensures the finished film feels like a natural part of his oeuvre. However, he also impresses in his dexterity at embracing a narrative outside of his usual toolbox. None of his prior pictures are very complex in plotting terms (even if The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is metatextually intense), but this one requires a rigorous attention to servicing the material’s coherence while avoiding over explanation. Gilliam initially resisted the airplane scene, feeling it would weaken the emotional ending – which he saw as Cole the boy seeing Cole the man die. It’s a delicate balancing act, and I believe he achieves it.

One might have presented an argument for the “all-in-Cole’s-head” reading without that final scene, especially given the picture ambiguously quoting an anonymous mental patient in the opening lines – shades of Sarah Connor in Terminator 2: Judgment Day – as a verification of future events. Gilliam and Willis present Cole’s subjectivity with sufficient woozy earnestness, as he switches from believing to not believing while Railly undergoes the reverse, that Peters on the plane is both providing something concrete and telling us that, yeah, Cole did succeed. In a way.

Adding to the potential pitfalls, Peoples avoids make things easy in terms of driving the plot, with Cole leaping back and forth in time the way he does; such a construction could easily have killed the picture’s momentum. Gilliam manages to sustain the tension, mostly because he also sustains the conviction of Cole’s emotional state. There are of, course, virtuoso Gilliam touches: the distorted angles and wide lens; showstoppers like Cole and Railly’s exposure on a wall of TV screens in a shop window; the oddball Vertigo homage. And sporadically very funny bits too. Pitt is highly amusing as a bug-eyed loon (his reaction to Cole eating a spider). Joseph McKenna is great as a demonic pimp (“I was attacked by a coked-up whore and a fucking crazy dentist”). Paul Buckmaster’s quirky score provides the perfect offbeat accompaniment, woozy French carnival music leading you on a merry dance.

It's curious how little Gilliam managed to capitalise on 12 Monkeys’ success. Perhaps such is the fate of wilful auteur. Not for him the prodigious output path of Sir Ridders’ post Gladiator. Instead, it stands as a curio. Gilliam the journeyman. Although obviously, such a thing is, by definition, impossible.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.