Skip to main content

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.

Coma arrived at the tail-end of the 1970s paranoia/conspiracy cycle, one that took in luminaries such as The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, The Conversation and All the President’s Men. The latter might have been a turning point, one favouring the post-Watergate illusion that you can bring down the villains, or that the villains themselves are no more than less-than-ripe apples in an otherwise well-upholstered barrel. Following it, we still got an occasional Silkwood, Defence of the Realm or (well, once it was taken off the shelf) Winter Kills, but the generally favoured conclusion was of order restored, no matter how dire the warnings along the way (The China Syndrome, Capricorn One, WarGames). So Coma, for all that it nurses The Parallax View’s profound unease at impenetrable corporate machinations amid gleaming, impersonal architecture, concludes that the bad guys will indeed be brought to justice, especially so if they’re Richard Widmark.

We are, of course, inhabiting an environment right now where wilful medical neglect, malfeasance and corruption is operating at unparalleled, genocidal levels, so Coma probably is positively meek in its warnings in that respect. But Crichton has a pretty acute sense of how it could be that care practitioners and those upholding a Hippocratic oath end up doing the deadly. Some simply aren’t inquisitive, accepting the assurances of their superiors and keen to assuage guilt (anaesthetists). Others are consumed with/ distracted by politics and the chain of command (Michael Douglas’ Bellows). Everyone is covering their asses. Everyone wants to believe the most acceptable, non-confrontational answer.

It’s an environment where it’s very easy for plots to percolate, because there is an express urge to remain oblivious. Consequently, comas are induced and – at the other end of the scale, where there is active complicity – their organs are farmed out. We’ve had much talk of this kind of thing, from the extreme of administering midazolam in care homes to the apparent contradiction of nurses putting on dance routines while overstretched wards lie empty, and patients are turned away from receiving attention. Which sounds more like science fiction?

Crichton’s movie doesn’t have a huge cast, one of the areas Pauline Kael criticised it for, but they are economically used to present charged perspectives and positions. Our protagonist, Dr Susan Wheeler (Genevieve Bujold) is systematically undermined for daring to take a questioning stand. If she isn’t being slandered for her womanly weakness (as Geoff Andrew put it in Time Out, the picture exposes the “patriarchal nature of the medical profession”), she’s being threatened – as is anyone who doesn’t fall into line – with an end to her tenure: “I certainly don’t think we want to lose a good surgical resident”.

Bellows: She’s paranoid. Thinks there’s a conspiracy.
Harris: Does she think you’re involved?
Bellows: No, I don’t think so.

Doctor George (Rip Torn) is only interested in deflecting any attention brought to bear on Boston Memorial Hospital’s anaesthesiology department. Bellows, whom Susan is seeing, is most engaged with playing the politics of the hospital (“Your day is always the same” she asserts), at the expense of their relationship and trust; the movie is good at playing up Douglas’ essential untrustworthiness. He’s also more than ready to fall back on stats to justify the party line. It’s only when dealing in “hypotheticals” that other doctors prove more than willing to play the “how to kill a patient” game (Ed Harris shares a discussion on the best method of inducing a coma without anyone detecting it was done intentionally).

Most significant is Richard Widmark’s Doctor Harris (the chief of surgery), holding forth on the long-term perspective, one that presumes the Elite feel the need to justify their immoral positions morally, or at least that their minions do. “When you’re older, everything is complicated” he explains, before wrapping his unconscionable acts in vaguely utilitarian language: essentially, if the end result is a vaguely conjectured “better world”, then anything goes. This is the stuff of great resets and depopulation agendas, even though that is no more than flim-flam marking altogether darker intent (ie it’s not to make a better world, simply one that more accurately reflects the one its refurbishers favour).

Harris: We must always take the long view. Not of the individual, but of society as a whole.

Harris talks of “momentous decisions” in respect of essentially treacherous areas (“about the right to die, abortion, terminal conditions, prolonged coma, transplantation”), all of which lend themselves to equivocal thinking: “Decisions about life and death” and ones that invariably require the one making the decisions to lean in a direction no scrupulous person would. He explicitly leans towards the idea that science (or medicine) is the new religion, the new article of faith. Such that “The great hospital complexes are the cathedrals of our age” and doctors are the priests (“Society’s leaving it up to us, the experts”, and “A whole nation of sick people turn to us for help”). They’re shepherding a flock (“They’re children”). A flock that doesn’t matter: “Because medicine is now a great social force. The individual is… too small”.

There may be an inclination to view this as hyperbole, in the grandstanding manner of Network, but Harris’ arguments are well-versed. Now, does that mean Crichton was in on the game, the way leading eugenicists (Wells, Huxley) were, in their “warnings” of a dread future? Who can say for certain, but he was undoubtedly a populist predicative programmer, forwarding, “legitimising” and/or inspecting such subjects as dinosaurs, DNA theory, gender politics, transhumanism, germ theory, race relations, alien contact, AI, and nanotech amongst others. They’re all areas that are as much about myth spinning as they are (or may be) related to legitimate discussion points. Whatever his dire warnings of science unchecked, Crichton was essentially, innately, an advocate of mainstream science, and thus one to double down on the predominate paradigm being enforced.

Are the Elite engaging in widespread organ harvesting? Is institutional medicine one big racket? Don’t worry yourself about any of that. Michael has saved Genevieve and it’s all all right. That final part of Coma is a bit of a stretch, it has to be admitted. Crichton indulges its thriller side fairly convincingly most of the time, even when Colonel Decker (Lance LeGault) is pursuing Susan like an unstoppable Yul Brunner (she is remarkably competent in a tight spot, variously employing a fire extinguisher and cadavers in aid of her cause, and escapes the Jefferson Institute on top of ambulance, following an early example of surveillance tech employed at her expense).

Bujold’s strong throughout, bringing nervy conviction to the proceedings. Which makes it the more disappointing that, given she doesn’t even trust her boyfriend, she should go and confide in Harris. As for Bellows coming to the rescue, it’s arguably a retrograde move in removing agency from the main (female) protagonist, and kind of dumb, since Bellows could simply intervene, instead of racing against time to the basement and letting Susan undergo an unnecessary procedure. That said, the sequence is remarkably suspenseful despite itself.

While I’m at it, I should note that, as justifiably iconic as the SF imagery used for the movie’s main poster pictures is – partially clothed coma patients suspended by wires to prevent bed sores – it doesn’t appear to be even remotely a feasible method; even in the brief time of shooting, it’s clearly shockingly bad for the backs of those extras employed. A few names to note besides Ed’s appearance: Tom Selleck, Lois Chiles and Philip Baker Hall all appear, and all would go on to much bigger starring parts.

Kael appeared in contrary mood when she reviewed Coma, complaining about it switching to “science-fiction fantasy” at the Jefferson Institute. It was “impersonal, detached” and “shallow material”: “The picture is all plot; it glides along smoothly, as if computer-operated”. As if any of these things are necessarily demerits. Indeed, she opined “Something needs to break loose; tossing cadavers around shouldn’t be this hygienic”. You can imagine her complaining of precisely the reverse, if it was as “essentially sleazy” as the bodysnatching theme suggested.

I’d argue that, contrary to her position – “We don’t go to a film like Coma for realism; we want the director to push the big scenes over the edge, to give them a twist and dislocate them” – it’s precisely this chilly grounding that makes the movie so effective. Still, she certainly had an undeniable flair for describing a performer, as evidenced by Bujold’s “slightly mouldy Peter Pan pertness”.

I’ll side with Andrew, though, calling Comaone of the most intelligent sci-fi thrillers in years” and relishing its chilling authenticity. Crichton made a movie about the impersonality of the medical establishment. Its frostiness is entirely coherent to its subject matter and its charge remains evergreen.



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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.