NYT film critic A.O. Scott picked the 1997 film "Gattaca" as his Critic's Video Pick this week. Watching Scott's 12-year appraisal of the movie brought up my complex relationship to it. On the one hand, I am quick to list it as one of my all-time favorites. A sucker for sci-fi, the plot is compelling, the ideas (while not the most original in the world) are moving, and Michael Nyman's score soars. Yet after watching the movie repeatedly, one starts to notice awkward plot points, poorly written dialogue and abysmal line delivery (Hellooo Gore Vidal).
Perhaps the most cringe-worthy part of the movie for me is the Vincent/Irene romance. Nowhere in the movie does Andrew Nicchol's script feel more forced and untrue. It seems that somewhere a suit decided that the movie would be more appealing if the main character got laid. Take for example, the "I'm sorry, the wind must have caught it" moment that is repeated, or the uncomfortable "A year is an awfully long time". What really bugs me about the relationship is how much it takes away from Vincent's journey.
There is an incredible tragic subtext to the whole movie. Vincent has resolved, given his poor genetic make-up, that he cannot and will not fit in on Earth. Throughout the film, Nichol's drops us hints that Vincent's attempt to steal Jerome's "perfect" genome is taking its toll on his imperfect body. For example, look at the aftermath of the treadmill scene. Or, when he reveals his true identity to Irene, Vincent tells us that he has already lived passed his expiration date. His desire to push himself harder and faster makes me think that he is more of a martyr to the god of hard work and the human spirit than an astronaut. Having Irene as a romantic distraction gives him a reason to live through the mission (and gives the film Vincent's dreadful monologue which detracts from what would otherwise be a gorgeous ending- a bit more below) and renders what otherwise would feel like a mythic film into a good, but some-what ordinary late 90s Hollywood flick.
Perhaps ascribing the world mythic to Gattaca is a bit much, but let me explain a bit more.
The film contains some beautifully simple motifs. For starters, there is Jerome's inexorable pull toward the stars, away from a world that, despite acheiving the key to genetic perfection, is marred by human prejudice and assumptions about one can and cannot accomplish. The shots of Ethan Hawke watching space shuttles rocket into the heavens (particularly the one early in the film where he is cleaning the roof of Gattaca) suggest Vincent's longing for catharsis in escape and death.
There is also a gorgeous doppelganger dynamic, both between Vincent and Jerome, and Vincent and Anton. The latter uses a swimming race between the two brothers to show basic competition--not just between the protagonist and the rest of "perfect human society", but also between the flawed Vincent and the man he would have been had his parents decided to "plan" their pregnancy.
The former, arguably the movie's heart, uses this same motif (Jerome is an ex-swimming champion) to show men who are mirror images of the other. Whereas Vincent has a flawed genome, his moral will is 'perfect'; His determination to reach 'the other side' is such that he is willing to sacrifice everything- his legs, his appearance--his identity. Jerome is genetically ideal, but he lacks spirit. Despite his physical gifts, he is the perpetual second-place loser. Neither man really fits in the world. The ending plays out the inevitable conclusion to both men's journeys. Vincent catapults himself into the heavens, Jerome sinks back into the earth as the furnace consumes him.
Given Nichols' subsequent efforts, I wonder if he'll ever reach the soaring heights he acheived with Gattaca. In the mean time, I will have to dream with this imperfect, but stunning film.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Obama and the Jews
I published this yesterday in a different blog I write for, but upon advisement, I decided to move it here.
In an Op-Ed published today by the New York Times, Aluf Benn--a Ha'aretz editor at large--asked, "Why Won't Obama Talk to the Jews?". Within a couple hours, Jeffrey Goldberg reported the White House reaction at the Atlantic Monthly. Despite the assurance of the unnamed officials Goldberg talked to, that Obama is and will continue to be committed to Israel's security and the Zionist cause, I can't shake off the feeling that there is a fissure developing between our executive and Israel, or worse--the impression of division.
Who is to blame?
On one hand, there is the ever present Jewish fear that forces are conspiring against the tribe. The fact that Tisha B'Av (the commemoration of the fall of the 2nd temple specifically, and everything bad that has happened to the Jews) starts Wednesday probably does not help either. Ever since right-wing American Jews and Israelis discovered Obama's middle name, there have been fringes in the USA and Israel warning of his secret Muslim upbringing and his concealed anti-Semitic agenda. While significantly less extreme, the suspicion of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel as "self-hating Jews" fits within this tradition of unwarranted paranoia. As the officials argued to Goldberg, complaining about Obama's attempts to reach out to the Arab World is a fundamental misunderstanding of the administration's goals. Emanuel pointed out at AIPAC Policy Conference in May that Arab support is critical both for a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace and to address the Iranian nuclear threat.
By the same token, Obama has not exactly been going out of his way to address these concerns either. It is all well and good that the June speech included a statement of unequivocal support for Israel, the president needs to realize that Jerusalem and Cairo are still worlds apart (even 30 years after Sadat). Coupled with the administration's uncomfortably public denunciation of Israeli settlement growth, it is not hard to see how Israel could come to see Obama in such a poor light.This is not to say that he should not take a hard line against outpost growth in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The settlement movement has long been an impediment to the peace process and a deleterious element in Israeli politics. But Obama needs to realize that freezing the settlements is not exactly a piece of cake, even for the most dove-ish politician, given the billions Israel has spent developing infrastructure in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements. Again, this is not an excuse, but it does indicate that ceasing construction is not as simple as many American politicians make it out to be. This is aggravated by the recent shift toward the right in Israeli politics- staring Bibi Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (whose remarks and policies are considered by many to be racist) with Tzipi Livni muted in the opposition. If Obama is going to make settlements part of the wider discussion, he should make the effort to engage the Israel, not ignore it. His current approach makes it too easy for the Palestinian leadership to ignore their own responsibilities in the peace process (mainly, their willingness to engage in discussion).
By addressing Israelis directly, the president will assuage fears that he is secretly apathetic or antagonistic towards the Jewish state. Even better, it would give him a platform to voice to offer some hard talk about the settlements. Having listened to his Inaugural and Cairo speeches, I am confident that he is more than capable of delivering.
In an Op-Ed published today by the New York Times, Aluf Benn--a Ha'aretz editor at large--asked, "Why Won't Obama Talk to the Jews?". Within a couple hours, Jeffrey Goldberg reported the White House reaction at the Atlantic Monthly. Despite the assurance of the unnamed officials Goldberg talked to, that Obama is and will continue to be committed to Israel's security and the Zionist cause, I can't shake off the feeling that there is a fissure developing between our executive and Israel, or worse--the impression of division.
Who is to blame?
On one hand, there is the ever present Jewish fear that forces are conspiring against the tribe. The fact that Tisha B'Av (the commemoration of the fall of the 2nd temple specifically, and everything bad that has happened to the Jews) starts Wednesday probably does not help either. Ever since right-wing American Jews and Israelis discovered Obama's middle name, there have been fringes in the USA and Israel warning of his secret Muslim upbringing and his concealed anti-Semitic agenda. While significantly less extreme, the suspicion of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel as "self-hating Jews" fits within this tradition of unwarranted paranoia. As the officials argued to Goldberg, complaining about Obama's attempts to reach out to the Arab World is a fundamental misunderstanding of the administration's goals. Emanuel pointed out at AIPAC Policy Conference in May that Arab support is critical both for a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace and to address the Iranian nuclear threat.
By the same token, Obama has not exactly been going out of his way to address these concerns either. It is all well and good that the June speech included a statement of unequivocal support for Israel, the president needs to realize that Jerusalem and Cairo are still worlds apart (even 30 years after Sadat). Coupled with the administration's uncomfortably public denunciation of Israeli settlement growth, it is not hard to see how Israel could come to see Obama in such a poor light.This is not to say that he should not take a hard line against outpost growth in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The settlement movement has long been an impediment to the peace process and a deleterious element in Israeli politics. But Obama needs to realize that freezing the settlements is not exactly a piece of cake, even for the most dove-ish politician, given the billions Israel has spent developing infrastructure in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements. Again, this is not an excuse, but it does indicate that ceasing construction is not as simple as many American politicians make it out to be. This is aggravated by the recent shift toward the right in Israeli politics- staring Bibi Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (whose remarks and policies are considered by many to be racist) with Tzipi Livni muted in the opposition. If Obama is going to make settlements part of the wider discussion, he should make the effort to engage the Israel, not ignore it. His current approach makes it too easy for the Palestinian leadership to ignore their own responsibilities in the peace process (mainly, their willingness to engage in discussion).
By addressing Israelis directly, the president will assuage fears that he is secretly apathetic or antagonistic towards the Jewish state. Even better, it would give him a platform to voice to offer some hard talk about the settlements. Having listened to his Inaugural and Cairo speeches, I am confident that he is more than capable of delivering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
