Skip to main content

My goodness, we’ve formed a pretty nifty team.

Squid Game
(2021)

(SPOILERS) Once in a blue moon, Netflix does deliver something worth one’s time, just as an exception that proves the rule. Inevitably, however, the level of attention and praise heaped on Squid Game is disproportionate with both its merit and originality. At its core, Hwang Dong-hyuk’s series, riffing as it does on a range of influences, from Battle Royale (one he cited), to Big Brother (itself predicated on individuals’ capacities for selfishness and turning on one another), to Utopia (the discordantly perky soundtrack and day-glo colour scheme, as carnage and violence erupts all around), is really very familiar and its targets (capitalism, huh?) disappointingly prosaic. But if the series has little new to say about human nature, it undoubtedly succeeds in engaging through its characterisation. As for the essential “entertaining the elite” theme, it could lend itself to readings beyond the self-evident one presented. Although it doesn’t exactly beg for them…

In terms of plotting, perhaps the biggest surprise comes early in the proceedings. While the game itself calls for volunteers – unlike the co-opted contestants in Battle Royale, The Running Man and The Hunt – the expectation would be that those blanching at the sight of fellow players being mown down in the first round would meet with an impassive response from their hosts. Instead, it turns out there’s a “democratic” approach to the gameplay, such that a majority may vote to return to their debt-burdened lives without punitive consequences (albeit, they are kept under surveillance). We’re shown that the controllers of the game have little to worry about from ex-participants going to the disbelieving authorities, barring an investigating cop who ultimately fares no better.

Subsequently, I wasn’t wholly persuaded by the dramatic conceit by which 187 of the 201 players then return (a 93% re-up rate, having had their numbers whittled down from 456), on the premise that likely death is preferable to dead-end debt. Doubtless some would go back for more, even on balance of the odds – and I’ve seen comments by the in-debt suggesting the conceit isn’t so far-fetched – but quite that level seemed fanciful. Of course, that’s based on a literal reading. If we regard the contestants as society itself, accepting inevitably deleterious and destructive ways of life at the behest of those in power, even to the extent of inviting experimental poisons into their bodies because they are told to, rather than, say, dropping out and going off grid in attempt to find something more hopeful, then the proportion doesn’t seem so far-fetched at all.

In terms of the suggested explanation for the elaborate spectacle, Oh Il-nam (001, played by O Yeong-su) proposed the contest as a means to alleviate the boredom of the rich, formulating an equivocation of the commonality between the rich and poor, that there is “no fun in life anymore” for either and thus the contest is mutually beneficial; it’s as pat a reveal as suggesting he was also attempting to assess whether there is any good left in humanity (as he illustrates with the bet on help coming to the drunk man on the street). We’re versed in this argument, since it’s a common fall back for humanity deserving its rum fate, and many of those in the game confirm this thesis (ie, one may see Squid Game as predictive programming of the order that we are to believe we are essentially worthless, and we have coming whatever comes for us).

Particular targets are the coolly intellectual 218 (Park Hae-soo’s, Chao Sang-woo), who reveals himself a master of rationalisation and ruthlessness of thought, pretty much from the first, albeit our lead 456 (Lee Jung-jae’s Seong Gi-hun) takes time to recognise this, even though he is alert to the signs immediately. There’s the inevitable religious hypocrite (244) too, and the tough guy gangster (101, obviously) who is really a coward, while there’s also a smattering of commentary on requisite touchstones immigration, racism and sexism. Gi-hun is seen to veer back and forth, well-meaning but nevertheless capable of manipulating 001 when he believes it will see him through to the next round.

As noted, the idea of an Elite game is pretty old hat. When one can argue Eli Roth (Hostel: Part II) came up with something more innovative, however distasteful, it means there’s little in the way of a flag to fly here. Culling the sheep for entertainment and pleasure. Hwang throws in various Kubrick references, not least the ornate mask wearing (Eyes Wide Shut) and human furniture (A Clockwork Orange, but also, bizarrely, Vamp). The idea of basic affluent moral decadence, without any additional increment, isn’t really sufficient, though, even as a broader metaphor. Not when there’s a global depopulation agenda in full swing; it rather makes Squid Game seem like small potatoes. What exactly will Gi-hun do in the sequel, unless he discovers there was someone else behind the old man (Hwang has said he has no specific idea or intention for more, but Netflix is sure to be persuasive)? Squid Game will need to rise to a greater challenge, not fall back in on itself.

On a practical level, one wonders how entertaining these games actually are for the viewing Elite. Sure, if they’re simply watching for the moment contests are plugged by guards, there’ll be a dependably queasy snuff-thrill. But in the meantime, cutting out cookies, playing marbles and waiting hours for a possible steak-knifing are hardly going to be riveting. Indeed, the extra-gaming mayhem of the lights-out slaughter is surely the sort of thing they’re really in it for, days-of-the-arena style, and there are fewer games offering that kind of immediacy (the tug of war, the glass bridge, the final squid game, although that one becomes less than compelling in terms of rule play.

Generally, Squid Game is well-enough sustained. Its second episode curveball of leaving, then returning to, the island (for Lost, that would be Seasons 4 and 5) soon gives way to a more routine approach. There’s even time for a subplot about organ harvesting that feels like filler. Additionally, the cop plot seems more about the reveal than finding anything terribly interesting for Hwang Jun-ho (Wi Ha-joon) to do in the meantime. I have to admit too, that it seemed likely early on that he would encounter his brother as a guard (by the time he’s revealed as The Front Man, played by Lee Byung-hun, I had forgotten this). He also has a remarkably long-life phone battery.

The same twist factor was true of the Old Man’s survival; my early thought was based entirely on his being numbered 001, and I’d long since abandoned that by the time of the final episode. One might point to a few The Prisoner pointers herein, with 456, our main protagonist, reducing to 6 (Patrick McGoohan’s designated number). 218 reduces to 2, who is, of course, 6’s weekly nemesis (101 is 2 too). There’s also the cop escaping for help, reaching a rocky shoreline, only to be stymied.

The show’s pop-art sensibility does much to lend it a veneer of something vibrant, from the PlayStation-esque shapes (actually from the squid game, but the similarity couldn’t have been lost on the maker) to the Escher stairways and the aforementioned day-glo colours reminiscent of Utopia. Also deserving a mention are the sometimes-eccentric subtitles (“That darned wench!” proving a particular favourite, uttered as it is by Heo Sung-tae’s gangster 101, showing remarkable restraint in his characterisation of Kim Joo-ryoung’s Han Minyeo, 212).

The suggestion is that a Squid Game sequel may focus on Front Man and the cop side of things (Hwang’s former profession), but series built on withholding and mystery tend to encounter problems if they don’t have a clear idea where they’re going. You can create an empty Mystery Box, or you can bungle your revelations. Squid Game 2.0 may reveal that Hwang has little else to add. Stranger Things may have entertained in its subsequent seasons, but it hasn’t felt essential beyond that first run.



Popular posts from this blog

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.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism