Skip to main content

They’ve chosen us so we can start over. So everything can start over.

Knowing
(2009)

(SPOILERS) Alex Proyas’ apocalyptic offering manages to be opaque in the best way, offering the viewer sufficient tools to arrive at a conclusion according to their own particular leanings. Albeit, perhaps not soaffirmative if they’re an avowed advocate of scientism. Even then, though, Knowing throws a few bones to the explicable in that regard. Unsurprisingly, it has become popular in Christian circles, with its appropriation of rapture imagery (and Ezekiel’s fiery chariot). While this is both a valid interpretation and one intended by the filmmaker, it would be a mistake to assume there aren’t other layers besides. Knowing leans strongly into Proyas’ earlier Dark City approach, wherebyThe movies I love don’t preach to their audience, but allow them to come up with their own thoughts and allow them space to think”.

Of course, Dark City very much benefits from refraining from pinning down Proyas’ concepts. There, he had the idea the Strangers were aliens who seized hold of a human spaceship (bang go all the Flat Earth readings!) Surprisingly, generally moribund co-writer David Goyer’s purgatory preference is the one that offers more sustenance thematically. In Knowing, the premise of numbers foretelling disasters leading to the end of the world (buried in a time capsule in 1959) has a numerology vibe that has understandably been compared to the likes of The Bible Code. And the aliens/angels appearing in human form have some parallels with the Childhood’s End (in which they appear as devils).

Going by Proyas’ Dark City take, one would be inclined towards literalism about the alien reading of Knowing, the von Daniken impulse towards aliens being interpreted as gods or angels: “You know, it started off its life as a kind of supernatural story. And I aligned it much more to the science fiction genre, and tried to make it as credible as I could and also give it some real layers of meaning, which I think is really important for me”. But Proyas leaves things unsaid in that regard. Like why the Whisperers resemble Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the same question as why the Strangers in Dark City resemble Richard O’Brien). Before reverting to more ethereal androgyne beings. Are they really angels, or something more transhumanist in conception (with their infernal machines?)

Is it a coincidence that the realm Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) and Abby (Lara Robinson) are transported to resembles a virtual landscape of idyllic corn fields via CGI sheen? Is this an alien planet? Is it paradise? Or is it a technocratic illusion brought about by beings posing as aliens and deceiving the populace into thinking they are genuine ETs? This is, after all, explicitly invoked via a Karl Schwab-style reset, in which all the adults – those who have received the deadly jab/been wiped out by a solar flare from the, yes Pleiades, the home of the friendly channelled aliens, don’t you know – die and the children are carried off to pastures new: “They’ve chosen us so we can start over. So everything can start over”. The children heard the call – whispering in their minds – because they have been fed the technocratic transhumanist doctrine from birth, and can quickly be brainwashed into forgetting their old lives.

Despite Proyas’ comments, the picture is couched very much in terms of science failing to offer answers. Indeed, he notes of Nic Cage’s Professor John Koestler “he's someone who is a scientist, so he's very pragmatic, and he believes in logic, and the law of physics, and the world being a very kind of specific place. Then when he decides, discovers that it's not – he has a hard time compensating for that, and dealing with that”. Knowing opens – and uses it on its poster – with the very definition of science’s universal rules, a globe Earth sitting in infinite space, and John viewing Saturn’s rings through his telescope and preaching the gospel of “ten million possible worlds” of life out there to his son. He duly encourages his MIT students to regurgitate information on the Sun rather than interrogate concepts intelligently for themselves.

The movie presents John’s disposition – “There’s no greater meaning. There’s no purpose” – as a consequence of grief for his recently lost wife (“You don’t even believe in heaven” rebukes his son, to which he responds “I just said, I don’t know for sure. If you want to believe, you go ahead and believe”). But it’s also evident this comes from an entirely rationalist, materialist perspective in terms of education and profession. Proyas flags the duelling concepts of determinism (divine order) vs randomness (science). Rather than free will vs determinism as is customary philosophically; evidently, free will is off the menu. John’s background is one of rational rebellion, since his father (Alan Hopgood) is a minister; interestingly, in terms of the rapture message, the Godfearing preacher is not one of the chosen, yet sanguine about his fate (“If it’s my time, it’s my time. I’m ready whenever the good Lord calls me”). Maybe he’s simply escaped the transhumanist fakery.

His son, however, comes to the conclusion there is something more, even if that something more is simply angelic aliens. Eventually “We’re all going to be together”. His friend Professor Beckman (Ben Mendelsohn) is evidently wrong in his denouncing where John’s deliberations are leading him: because people see what they want to see and “Right now, my scientific mind is telling me to have nothing more to do with this. And yours should be too”.

If Beckman is wrong, there is a (disputed by professional scientists which surely means something) rational explanation on hand for what is happening, even if not for the time-capsule predictions. Super flares from the Pleiadean region are en route to Earth, and “A hundred micro-tesla more of radiation would destroy our ozone layer killing every organism on the planet”. It’s that or magical angelic intervention. Take your pick; the global flares gobbledegook is a sop to scientism, of course, because that’s what everyone worships today, more by default than by choice.

The real-world explanation for wiping out the population of the planet with a select few – or perhaps by selected regions and unselected youngsters – remaining is less down to freemasonic science’s definitions of universal operations and its multiple measures of 33 than the more prosaic discipline of the contents of a syringe willingly partaken by a swathe of ready dupes. Cattle to the slaughter. The key is in the title, of course. Choosing something else takes Knowing, although opting out doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be granted a free pass go onwards as one of the chosen.

Proyas’ movie boast decent performances all round. Cage is in earnest rather than eccentric mode. Rose Byrne is very much in a supporting role rather than co-lead. Canterbury is very good as the son, while Mendelsohn is – unusually – a relatively nice guy. Liam Hemsworth has a scene (the movie was shot in Australia). There’s a whole lot of CGI, and it would probably have been best to stint on the fiery moose and subway destruction derby. But if the effects are abundant, they aren’t actually intrusively bad for the most part. There’s good use of Beethoven’s Seventh – also well used in the underseen Photographing Fairies – during the scene of urban upheaval at the conclusion and the one-shot set piece that starts on a bridge and leads to a plane crash; the latter has something of The Mothman Prophecies about it.

Most recently, Proyas was critically slaughtered for the highly entertaining Gods of Egypt. He’s a consistently engaging director in philosophical terms, if never quite attaining the auteurial clout to knock it out of the park. Should anyone be around much longer to see it, I’m fairly certain, he has that capacity. Call it Knowing.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

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.