Skip to main content

You don’t own that plane, the tax payers do!

Top Gun
(1986)

(SPOILERS) I wasn’t a fan of this Navy recruitment reel at the time. If anything, I’m even less so now. I well recall how insanely popular Top Gun was, but I doubt if I’d have found it palatable even without the insistent effrontery of Tom Cruise’s shit-eating grin bookending each scene. This Simpson and Bruckheimer production is a studiously hollow, vacuous picture, one that attempted to make a virtue of its empty-headed machismo and consequently landed in the most zeitgeisty fashion. It’s this, rather than Wall Street, that really sums up the 80s, because it’s this that really reflects uncomprehending audiences’ aspirations, so easily swayed were they by its materialist frivolities and cornball rhetoric.

Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer – or perhaps, in retrospect, it was mostly Jerry Bruckheimer – were nothing if not canny, tapping the ad market for engineers, I mean artisans, who could bring the same kind of compelling spectacle to the big screen. Such packaging was as much about sound as image, hence hugely popular soundtrack CDs accompanying the flashy visuals in this, Flashdance and Beverly Hills Cop. There’s no understating the savvy of the move. It’s impossible to truly divorce the two – call it alchemy, if you like – but Tony Scott’s sheen and the Giorgio Moroder/Harold Faltermeyer synth charge are masterstrokes. Which doesn’t make the movie any less horrible, but it’s to emphasise that elsewhere, Scott would deliver the goods and then some – the trio of Last Boy Scout, True Romance and Enemy of the State particularly – and that if both Faltermeyer and Moroder fell out of fashion, their contributions to this movie remain classics. Mostly… It’s easy to see why the soundtrack was a huge hit (Danger Zone, Take My Breath Away) but some of Faltermeyer’s incidentals, notably Maverick in mourning, are quite insufferable.

Bafflingly, Chris Peachment in Time Out suggested “The story is risible, the direction routine…” One thing the direction is not is routine. It’s really quite ground breaking. War was cool again, legitimately (not just in a Nam veteran way), which was quite some doing. And Scott’s kineticism would be hugely influential, right the way through to “virtuous” war-horror porn like Saving Private Ryan. Scott made the Navy groovy and being a fighter pilot the ultimate aspirational goal.

He shot his planes back lit by the Sun and embraced his cast’s macho camaraderie to such an overpowering extent that Tarantino would later cameo in torporous love-triangle dramedy Sleep with Me, waxing lyrical about the homoerotic subtext. It’s a lot more convincing than his indulgent Like a Virgin monologue that kicks off Reservoir Dogs, in part because Top Gun is so overt, it barely qualifies as subtext or undercurrent; every opportunity to flaunt buff male bods is taken, intermittent with sparring and scoffing and complimentary come-ons. All amusingly cheesy, but not quite loveable for it, as the picture goes out of its way to be horrifically over sensational in almost any given aspect. Meaning any given aspect, cumulatively, becomes plain tiresome.

It isn’t surprising then, that Cruise needs to convince us he’s a passionate heterosexual; a love scene was added in reshoots as, apparently, test screenings demanded it. If not for that, the congregation of adoring men, young and adult, would likely have even the least discerning devout heterosexual male viewer tugging uneasily at his collar. I forgot how charmlessly punchable Tom used to be. Around this time, it took Oliver Stone to bury that “quality”, and it would loosely be another decade before he’d begin working actively against it.

He’s a thoroughly obnoxious little shit in Top Gun. This was far from his breakout role – that would be Risky Business – but it’s definitely the one that made him a brand (curious to look back and note that, rather than capitalise on his 1983 hits, he dived into a huge and time-consuming bomb for Tony’s brother, so there was a three-year gap between Business and this, his next hit. Something similar happened after the double of Mission: Impossible and Jerry Maguire, as he entered the quagmire of Eyes Wide Shut).

I’m far from the only one who found Cruise intolerable during this period. Bart Mills referred to Maverick as a “nasty little mirror-watching puke” in the Film Yearbook Vol 6, while Peachmant, who liked the movie, termed him “an arrogant piece of Officer Material”. It’s particularly unconscionable that everyone is constantly showering Pete Mitchell’s obnoxious behaviour with compliments, even if not to his face. They all find him irresistible in his cocksure majesty, and anyone would be his wingman, young or old. Even Strickland, I mean Stinger (James Tolkan in the back-to-back biggest movies of consecutive years). Maverick’s a legend, a myth, even to nemesis/lover Iceman (“I heard about you. You like to work alone”; “It’s not your flying. It’s your attitude”). “Gutsiest move I ever saw, man” says a former berater after Maverick is admonished for dangerous flying. If even Michael frickin’ Ironside adores Maverick, you know no one will stand up to him. Tom Sketitt’s a pushover (“And if you don’t, give me a call. I’ll fly with you”). All these seasoned veterans give the little sex pest far more rope than he deserves.

It remains perplexing why would Kelly McGillis’ Charlie Blackwood thinks him hot stuff. I mean, sure, she’s playing a fantasy civilian astrophysicist Navy advisor, but that half-decade age gap may as well be a quarter of a century, between his adolescent insistence and her adult (McGillis is not back for the sequel, but then she isn’t spending her sixties attempting to be thirty). When Maverick and Goose (Anthony Edwards) serenade Charlie in a bar, she seems to consider it flattering, rather than cause to break a bottle over his head. And if she initially mocks him perceptively (“Maverick? Does your mother not like you or something?”), she soon changes her tune, wowed by his manly manoeuvring: “So you’re the one”, on realising he was “in a 4G negative dive with a MIG 28”. There’s a reason Tom doesn’t need to play a superhero: Maverick’s Batman! Batman who needs to wear lifts or have McGillis standing in a trench so she doesn’t tower over him. Charlie doesn’t press charges for Maverick pursuing him into the ladies and hassling him. Instead she engages in steamy rumpo and rides on his bike.

Of course, it can’t all be plain sailing. There need to be some facile demons for Maverick to overcome, as well as a nameless enemy to blow out of the sky (you have to justify the armed forces, so if all else fails, create a threat. Scratch that, if all else doesn’t, fail create a threat. Hegelianism in full effect). So he has a dad who was a pilot to live up to (Skerritt’s Viper Metcalf flew with his old man). And he needs to learn to be cocky andresponsible, so Iceman will be his wingman, and for that he needs chastening death.

Pauline Kael’s review referred to Tom as a “nautilized, dinky thing” which is hilarious. He must have loved that. She also suggested “Top Gun is a recruiting poster that isn’t concerned with recruiting but with being a poster”. Which is an excellent call.

It’s notable how many budding actors turned Top Gun down for glorifying war (Matthew Modine among them, who was making the likes of Birdy and Full Metal Jacket around his time). There are few of the mooted names you could imagine making it a hit the way Cruise’s presence does, though. Tom has none of their moral qualms, something that ought to be evident from his subsequent career. You might think one religiously inclined – particularly towards a religion that saw its founder demobbed due to alleged infirmities – would be a little less enthusiastic. But as documented by Matthew Alford in Reel Power, Cruise has said Bush’s policies were “solid” and “rooted in reality”. Presumably, the reality of a mask-wearing, spleen-venting-on-hapless-crew, plandemic-touting, couch-jumping scientologist. He also met with the CIA to discuss positive presentation in Mission: Impossible III. Plus, he still plans to make a movie in space (yeah – ha-ha-ha, him and Elon’s car both). Tom is fully on board with the elite agenda. The only variable is how long they want him in their boat.

However keen Tom is, Bruckheimer is even more so. One suspects he’s mostly just a shrewd businessman, having made a slew of Department of Defence-assisted movies (Top Gun, Pearl Harbour, Black Hawk Down) and “contributed financially to George W Bush and John McCain…Top Gun, famously, was a major boon to the Navy and “helped with recruiting like crazy” (there were 500 percent more applicants in its wake). This may all sound peachy, but more serious-minded military men weren’t so enthused with the way it “fuelled misconceptions on the part of junior officers of what was expected of them and served to… glorify naval pilots in the eyes of many young women”. Rear Admiral Alan “Boot” Hill attested that “young aviators at Miramar Naval Air Station began strutting around believing they actually were Tom Cruise” with “carloads of women” showing up. Yep, that sounds like the 80s.

Interesting to be reminded of who else shows up here. It’s the first sighting of cute-as-a-button Meg Ryan. Playing a hick, which I didn’t recall. It’s weird seeing Edwards with hair. Tim Robbins is there (Merlin), and apparently, he isn’t too tall to be a pilot (he’s right on the edge at 6 feet 5 inches). Adrian Pasdar was about not to hit it big with Near Dark, and John Stockwell hadn’t yet decided directing was where his bag was at.

You won’t find mention of this on the Wiki page, but Alford documents how plans for a sequel were initially floated only half a decade after the original. Alas, they were “reportedly ditched… when hundreds of Navy pilots hit the front pages for allegedly molesting and mauling 87 women at the Navy’s Tailhook Association annual convention”. Surely par for the course, but more than enough bad publicity simply is bad publicity. Despite my antipathy towards Top Gun, I am intrigued to see the sequel. Not because I feel the need for speed – real Top Gun, according to IMDB, so not necessarily cited, fines anyone quoting the movie – but because Joseph Kosinski can capture vistas like no other. I might be able to take a little indigestible jingoistic militaristic fervour if it looks nice. Besides, the forces could use all the good publicity they can get right now.




Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.