Skip to main content

I work very hard to keep any President from knowing I even exist.

The X-Files
4.7: Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man

The popularity of this one has always mystified me. But then, trading off the “appeal” of CSM was never something likely to pique my interest. Combine that with the most tired backstory conceivable – “Some of it may indeed be true, and some of it may – well, never mind” commented Frank Spotnitz – that takes in riffing on/ripping off/homaging – take your pick, depending on your disposition – then recent touchstones JFK, Dark Skies and Forrest Gump, and you’ve got forty-odd minutes very thin on inspiration.

Even the one distinctive part of Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man gives way to overt referencing of Gump, as CSM mulls his failed creative aspirations, discovering his serialised novel (based on fact but published as fantasy) has had its ending changed. Making CSM a wannabe is Glen Morgan and James Wong “humanising” the character, but as neat an idea as that is, I’m not sure it really puts any meat on his bones. It’s closer to a series of incoherent parts that William B Davis and Chris Owens, as his younger self, are expected to salvage (Rob Shearman believes this was intentional).

And with regard to referencing Gump so directly, I’m doubtful that was such a hot idea either, even if it went down well at the time (CSM dyspeptically informs us how rubbish the box of chocolates metaphor is). Of course, one might argue that Forrest Gump, like Zelig before him, is precisely the reverse of CSM’s deliberate appearance at the assassinations of JFK and MLK, given that he, absurdly for even X-lore, is the trigger man for both – hence Frohike admitting he read the story “in a crummy magazine”. It’s rather the outsized presence at key historic events that beckons the comparison.

There’s also the way the episode is so determinedly banal in its recreation of history, pursuing the Oliver Stone approach of filling in the gaps of key-note events (Morgan Weisser makes for a rather hyper Lee Harvey Oswald after Oldman’s soporific tone). Merely inserting young CSM as a key coordinator fails to elicit any spark in by-now rather tediously familiar events (aside from realising he’s hiding in a storm drain when he fires the kill shot). The same is true of MLK, with much of the sequence contextualised by MLK speechifying on the soundtrack and CSM making it clear he rather respects the man (why, to show CSM has some very particular values? And isn’t all bad?)

The Dark Skies charge may not be entirely fair, since its brief and forlorn attempt to cash in on X-cachet was airing concurrently with Season Four, but the makers were surely aware of its premise. And while that show was less than entirely successful, it was commendably going for broke in its weaving of anything and everything from the ’60s – five decades-spanning seasons were planned – into a UFO-laced context. To that degree, it was having a level of fun that could have sorely benefited Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man.

Indeed, so much of this episode seems downright lazy, from CSM reading The Manchurian Candidate (I know, I know, it’s cute) to never smoking (so he obviously picks up at one point – as it turns out, Oswald’s). There’s an occasional neat line when we reach 1991 (“I’m working on next month’s Oscar nominations. Any preferences?") and it’s nice to see Deep Throat again. But did we need to rehearse the moments leading up to Scully being requisitioned? Or Deep Throat killing the alien he once mentioned?

So no, I’m not so impressed by this. When CSM goes to the newsstand and a headline asks “Where the Hell is Darin Morgan?” my response is “Where the hell indeed?” He would surely have delivered a much more engaged, irreverent and less respectful dive into history/fantasised history. Yes, I can see the “legend in his own mind” argument, but I don’t think Davis can carry the transition from a shadowy smoker in the corner to someone who possibly carries the weight of historical import placed on his shoulders. Chris Owens is very good, though.

Rob Shearman seemed to like the episode for all the reasons I don’t, suggesting it is “deliberately anticlimactic” and “seeks to alienate the viewer” (“it promises a character study and it’s everything but”). He called it “a delicious parody” – as in, the entire flashback is a tissue of lies, a conceit of fabrications – but it would have to be actually clever for that (and where’s the joke in Deep Throat shooting the alien?) “It sends up The X-Files’ ability to find answers, suggesting that the entire spine of the back story is never to be coherently explained… there is no truth out there”.

Which smacks rather too much of the old “No, really, it’s intentionally bad/boring/stupid” argument. Perhaps Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man was smarter before Carter stuck his oar in, arguing over the unreliable narrator, which bits were and weren’t real and not letting Frohike be offed, but I’m dubious. The whole endeavour is so flat, so lacking in juice. Besides, Shearman genuinely seems to think the Gump riff is “one of the funniest jokes The X-Files has ever made”.









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.

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.

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.

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…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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.

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.

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.