Skip to main content

Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?

Demolition Man
(1993)

(SPOILERS) Demolition Man, the point at which Sly finally dipped his toe into SF waters – he’d formerly left that to President Schwarzenegger – is not a great movie. But it’s easy to assume the bits of it that are – great – are all down to screenwriter Daniel Waters, impressing his acerbic and absurdist perspective on what would otherwise surely have been another forgettable future-tense flick. There’s much in here that might be labelled predictive programming, but equally much that could be laid at the door of the bog-standard mechanics of your standard Joel Silver production. Indeed, once we’re into the last half of the movie, and the interminably uninvolving action sequences take precedence, it becomes very easy to see why Stuart Baird was called in to fix the thing (he did a much less persuasive patch job than on Last Boy Scout, but then one can only work with what one is given).

Squad Leader: Maniac has responded with a scornful remark.

Vulture, in a piece last year, referred to Demolition Man’s “restrictive utopia”. Which is about right. Mostly, the movie comes across as a somewhat robust attack on corrosive liberalist political correctness gone mad, with staunch Republican and “muscle-bound grotesque” Stallone given cause to state of San Angeles “This fascist crap makes me want to puke”. As such, it is rather presented as a reactionary “man up” posturing, whereby everyone here has become weak-willed and lily-livered, the sorts who go to communication booths and confess “I just don’t think there’s anything special about me”. To which a soothingly fibbing computer responds “You are an incredibly sensitive man who inspires joy joy feelings in all those around you”). The same types who are now labelled or who label themselves triggered by everything or anything in the world around them because they have been nurtured (or barely nurtured at all) to have no sense of perspective. In other words, it’s astonishingly on point, yet it arranges itself as a right-leaning fantasy of correct thinking restored.

Lenina Huxley: The rampant exchange of bodily fluids was one of the major reasons for the downfall of society.

More especially, Demolition Man objects to pretty much everything that currently trends, from restrictions on inappropriate language, on inappropriate opinions, on inappropriate food (Gates’ lab-grown meat would be a shoe-in for “appropriate”), on inappropriate contact, on inappropriate sex (VR only, anything else is icky and germ-y because “After AIDS there was NRS. After NRS there was UBT” – of course, what Waters and Vulture are missing in their parallels is that this future society is also built on lies and propaganda, just the one they’re batting from), on children, on inappropriate freedom (everyone is chipped and tracked), on inappropriate commerce (the current booming monopolies are personified by Taco Bell being the only restaurant “to survive the franchise wars”), on inappropriate currency (since “money is outmoded, all transactions are through code”). Indeed, we are told of Simon’s activities that “not being coded could hit him and limit his options”. You know, akin to refusing to be stuck with the needle, and removing all physical money from circulation so you absolutely have to comply or sacrifice your rights or universal credit because you have no other income. Waters: “… obviously, I can’t say I made that stuff up. That was on everybody’s horizon, It was a good thing I did it for laughs, though.

It even brings on Denis Leary, now a seamlessly indistinct servitor of the Hollywood establishment but then a guy with actual teeth, as resistance leader Edgar Friendly, riffing against… Actually, his patented rant is essentially in favour of eating things that are bad for you, after the requisite “… I’m the enemy. Cause I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice”. Friendly still has choice, though. Even going down there, underground, may not be an option soon:

Edgar Friendly: You wanna live on top, you gotta live Cocteau’s way. What he wants, when he wants. Your other choice: come down here, maybe starve to death.

There have been no deaths other than from natural causes in sixteen years (they probably have an extremely wide, allopathically approved definition of natural causes). Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat, bad language, chocolate, gasoline and uneducational toys are also banned. And everything spicy. Abortion too, but lest you think that’s too right trending, so is pregnant unless you have a licence. This is, essentially, a Schwab-ian reset, albeit an unlikely localised one (little reference is made to the broader country, let alone world, other than to the historic President Schwarzenegger; some would claim no 61st amendment was necessary for a non-American-born President to take office). We are told it resulted from civilisation trying to destroy itself; rioting reached the point of “The citizenry cocooning in their houses, afraid to go out. The people just wanted the madness over”. You can get to that point through rioting. Or through lockdowns. Or a combination of the two. In this case, natural disaster has also played a hand (“… the Big One of 2010… The earthquake”) This is the same mantra recently expressed by the Imperial officer in The Mandalorian Chapter 15. We’ll all be begging for order, any order, and that’s when they seal the deal.

Lenina Huxley: Salt is not good for you. Hence it is illegal.

Perhaps what Demolition Man has most right is our essential adaptability to being told what to think and how to behave, and to justify that system against all contrasting logic otherwise. The difference is that Sandra Bullock’s Lenina Huxley (two names deriving from Brave New World) would probably not have the freedom to express her retro-fascinations so overtly – curious that she has prominently placed photos of JFK and a NASA rocket – because it would suggest she is permitted too much choice.

Being Daniel Waters, he keeps Demolition Man breezy for the most part (Robert Reneau and Peter M Lenkov penned the original script, but Waters’ two-week polish was so extensive that he was awarded a co-credit). Hence diversions like the three seashells (probably the most famed part of the movie, that or Sandy’s leggings). The swear machine is also very amusing (particularly used as a background effect, or Sly’s John Spartan utilising its capacities to produce toilet paper in response to the seashells dilemma). Waters’ winningly peculiar phrasing – “Greetings and salutations” is a straight lift from Heathers – also makes this more colourful than the average Joel Silver picture (well, excepting Hudson Hawk, which he also scripted). Then there’s the alteration of behaviour through synaptic suggestion, terrifying and handy for Simon’s special skillz but which reveals a passion for knitting from Spartan. Nostalgia is dealt a devastating blow, as it surfaces in terrible taste in classical music in the form of twentieth century advertising jingles.

Erwin: We’re police officers. We aren’t trained to handle this kind of violence.

There are intrusions of a more earnestly consequential nature, though. Reportedly, a subplot involving Spartan’s daughter ended up on the cutting room floor, while John attesting he was awake throughout this cryogenic suspension is a resonant one completely left stranded because the picture has no time to dwell on it. But probably for the best, as Stallone isn’t the guy to explore such challenges (“A person would go insane”). Indeed, there isn’t very much here that’s cohesive when you get down to essentials. Somehow villain Doctor Cocteau (Nigel Hawthorne) has an autonomous reign, such that when he is dispatched, an actual, genuine change in the power structure is possible (Hollywood SF fantasy 101). If everyone here is so unaccustomed to violence, that must surely be the case everywhere else too, or San Angeles would be constantly overrun and brutalised. Waters leaves these things up in the air, perhaps sensibly. Probably because Demolition Man is essentially light hearted, and for all the future-prognostication essentially unadventurous.

As realised by Marco Brambilla, the movie offers an effective sense of milieu when out and about in sunny San Angeles. Less so when confined to obvious set interiors, be it underground sanctuaries or public libraries. At such points, the movie takes on the air of obvious artifice found in the likes of the decade’s lowlier, misfiring future visions such as Freejack or Johnny Mnemonic. Even Paul Verhoeven was somewhat blindsided with his chunky Mars sets in Total Recall.

Lenina Huxley: You really licked his ass.

Brambilla would mostly give up the directing gig after the failure of Excess Baggage. Instead, he carved himself out a niche in the realm of video installations. One couldn’t really posit him as a director of startling perception here, even though he clearly has a visual sense. The choppy casting, meanwhile, tends to balance out by merit of Waters’ idiosyncrasies, such that the likes of Stallone, Snipes and Hawthorne (none of whom got on famously) can share a scene without it seeming too bizarre. Stallone’s straight-man posturing is put mostly to good effect – the fish out of water “Sleeper version” of the movie that Waters added – the butt of jokes and the effective cause of a few; Bullock is an effective foil in one of her most appealing roles (she replaced Lori Petty, who characterised her relationship with Sly as “like oil and water”). As usual, she makes everyone else seem at ease, although even she can’t convince us there’s anything remotely romantic going between Huxley and Spartan.

Chief Earle: Do you really long for chaos and disharmony?

The bigger problem is that Demolition Man has no place interesting to go. About the time Spartan encounters Edgar’s underground enclave, the picture takes a detour from quirky and peculiar into determinedly undemanding. Snipes is a dynamo throughout, wired and inventive and as a result an effective contrast with the stolid Stallone, but even he can’t make the picture’s last act involving. Mostly, Waters attests he was just having fun in his two-and-a-half-week rewrite, and he’s enough of a maverick that I can believe that (“There’s a meme that’s like ‘Demolition Man predicted the future… There’d be no more toilet paper, Taco Bell would run the world, and Wesley Snipes would be let out of prison’”).

Lenina Huxley: Civilisation as we know it will come to an end. What will we do?
John Spartan: I don’t know, but trust me. This is better for you.

Demolition Man pitches a vision of false utopia, which is the sort of thing the WEF lamely tries to sell, and it scores with the idea that it will only take a generation or so to completely remould conceptions of reality and history. This future is realised between 1996 and 2032. Take that same amount of time forward from now, and the utopian dystopia presented here will likely look like a genuine heaven by 2057. And that’s if you’re somehow out of the firing line, living in the underground.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c