Skip to main content

Doctors make the worst patients.


(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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.