Pages

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

The Apocalypse Is Now

WordMaster

             From the epic floods and divine battles of ancient mythology to the nuclear holocausts and alien invasions of the Cold War, humanity has been imagining its own demise since the beginning of civilization. Freud would probably attribute this obsession to the death drive, a subconscious impulse toward destruction that all people supposedly have. Apocalyptic fantasies allow us to confront our fears of mortality, time, foreigners, etc., in a safe place, distanced from the real world yet so rich with metaphorical possibilities, and especially in a visual medium like film, they provide ample opportunity to indulge audiences’ appetite for lurid spectacle.

             Recently, though, catastrophe has dominated cinema on a scale virtually unprecedented, dwarfing the ‘50s sci-fi and horror B-movie craze. In 2011, we got the art house trinity, Melancholia, The Tree of Life and, my personal favorite, Take Shelter. 2012 gave us Prometheus, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Battleship and Cloud Atlas, among others (but curiously, not the actual movie 2012, which came out way back in 2009), and 2013 had not one but two action-comedies set during the apocalypse, not to mention an avalanche of weirdly glum, monochrome-hued tent-poles. This year, there was Noah, Edge of Tomorrow, Godzilla, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Snowpiercer, The Rover and Interstellar, as well as the usual procession of superhero flicks, which are apparently required by Hollywood Law to have Armageddon-sized stakes. You can barely go a week without seeing ads for yet another movie that threatens to destroy Earth – or at least a major metropolitan area.

             In general, blockbusters nowadays tend to revel in what Stephen Colbert once described as destruction porn, deploying wave upon wave of computer-generated explosions and wreckage in hopes of distracting viewers from their flimsy, senseless or flat-out nonexistent plots. Although the bigger-is-better brand of filmmaking isn’t necessarily anything new (Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich have been blowing shit up since the mid-1990s), only in the past few years has it felt truly, oppressively ubiquitous, soul-crushing rather than just mind-numbing. Long gone are the days when something like Back to the Future, a breezy coming-of-age tale whose biggest action set-piece consists of a skateboard chase, could be a legitimate box office hit; at some point, our definition of entertainment seems to have evolved into “watching hundreds of thousands of people get casually massacred”. Hell, even How to Train Your Dragon 2, the sequel to a PG-rated kid’s movie, is about a fascist warlord on some vague quest for world domination. 


 It’s also vaguely racist, though that’s nothing new for animation.

             At least 2014 offered a handful of movies that actually bothered to acknowledge the consequences of the havoc they wrecked, instead of using 9/11 imagery for easy shock value or, worse, ignoring the darkness altogether. Edge of Tomorrow, for example, is essentially a war movie in which “the enemy” happens to be aliens. Needless to say, it’s not exactly Saving Private Ryan in terms of exposing the horrors of combat and such, but Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt’s self-assured performances convey a sense of trauma rare in action movies of this magnitude (just compare Cruise here to his work in the Mission: Impossible series). Cage and Rita seem genuinely scarred by what they’ve experienced, their interactions tinged with weary desperation.  Similarly battle-hardened characters populate Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Snowpiercer. In the former, Malcolm, played by Jason Clarke, has formed a makeshift family with his son Anthony and Keri Russell’s Ellie, who lost her daughter in the chaos that erupted after the simian flu outbreak. Like its predecessor, Dawn gives its humans thin personalities, preferring to flesh out the titular apes, but you nonetheless get the sense that there’s history between them, that they’ve been through a lot together and grown accustomed to suffering in silence. In Snowpiercer, Chris Evans’s reluctant revolutionary Curtis Everett is tormented by what he has done to survive (spoiler alert: it’s cannibalism). These films all depict personal attachments as liabilities, hindering individuals from taking the measures necessary for self-preservation and the common good; in the apocalypse, you have to sacrifice either your life or your humanity.


             It’s not all doom and gloom. After all, whatever allegorical aims they might have, the aforementioned movies ultimately function first and foremost as escapist entertainment, full of gaudy visual effects and high-speed action sequences. Edge of Tomorrow in particular received abundant praise for its unexpected humor, as director Doug Liman and screenwriters Christopher McQuarrie and Jez and John-Henry Butterworth were compelled to constantly find new ways of enlivening the movie’s repetitive structure. For the most part, though, these films’ strength lies in their willingness to take their premises seriously, no matter how ridiculous (talking, machine gun-wielding, horseback-riding apes take over the world! A failed attempt to counteract global warming forces all humans to live on one really long train!). They rebuff the common misconception that earnestness and enjoyment can’t coexist or, by the same token, that flippancy necessarily signifies an absence of cynicism or pretension. Rather than an excuse to avoid addressing weightier issues, the moments of levity serve to balance out and, sometimes, even enhance the inherent tragedy of the characters’ situations.


Case in point: this short film that’s technically a promo for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes but also one of the most heartbreaking things I’ve seen this year

             In many ways, the current apocalyptic film trend perfectly encapsulates the general mood of 2014. It was an emotional year, to say the least, brimming with controversies momentous and trifling. It was the year of #CancelColbert, a semi-ironic Twitter campaign that blew up into a fleeting yet heated national debate on the value of satire and so-called hashtag activism. It was the year of #YesAllWomen, #RapeCultureIsWhen, #BlackLivesMatter, #WhyIStayed and several other online movements intended to provide space for marginalized groups to express themselves. It was the year Renee Zellweger got plastic surgery, Robin Williams committed suicide, Bill Cosby fell from grace, and Dylan Farrow spoke out against Woody Allen. It was the year of GamerGate; the year a 4chan user stole and publicized nude photos of numerous female celebrities; the year campus rape, street harassment and domestic violence, at last, dominated mainstream conversation. It was the year Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and Antonio Martin were killed by police officers. It was the year we wondered if a crude Seth Rogen movie would incite World War III (not really, though the fact that this seemed like an even remotely imaginable possibility is, in itself, telling and terrifying).

             2014 was so full of sadness and indignation that Slate published a comprehensive feature cataloguing and analyzing everything that outraged anyone. At times, it felt as though we were reaching some sort of breaking point – not the end of the world, per se, but the end of a world. When Ferguson blazed for those two or so weeks in August, ravaged by seemingly everlasting turmoil and pain, it wasn’t just a protest, we thought; it was a revolution, the culmination of years, decades, centuries of racial oppression and injustice. During GamerGate, many commentators reasoned that the ongoing barrage of misogynistic threats aimed at prominent women in the games industry and media was a result of traditional gamers frantically clinging to the remnants of their toxic, outdated culture, refusing to accept the truth that they’ve become irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether concrete change actually occurs; the apocalypse is about the fear – or, depending on your outlook, the anticipation – of change, the nagging sense that something we’ve long taken for granted, something fundamental to our individual, group or cultural identity, is slipping from our grasp. But of course, the apocalypse never really happens, so we’re left here, locked in a perpetual state of waiting, of dying.


So important.

If people now seem overly prone to hyperbole (2014 is unofficially known as the worst year ever), it’s because gradually, over the past half-century, our perception of reality has been radically, irrevocably altered. With the rise of digital technology, space and time no longer exist, at least not in the way they used to; they have been compressed, warped, transcended. Thanks to the Internet, you can carry on entire conversations and relationships with people you’ve never actually seen or spoken to; you can follow news, detail by detail, as it happens from the comfort of your couch; you can look into the past simply by scrolling through Twitter, unlimited information at your fingertips, intact.

It can hardly be an accident that Interstellar, a movie that proudly advertised its availability in 70mm and 35mm film, is so preoccupied by the concept of time: even more than Memento and Inception, it’s Christopher Nolan’s attempt to cope with his anxiety about the digital age. Film has always been an uncanny medium, manipulating camera and editing techniques to create the illusion of a reality, but celluloid is, by nature, not permanent, composed of chemicals that slowly erode its physical material even as they’re meant to preserve the images it captures. As David Norman Rodowick says in his book The Virtual Life of Film, “This is one of the many ways in which watching film is literally a spectatorship of death.” In theory, the transition to digital eliminates this process, allowing art to persist unscathed for eternity, sheltered from the scars of time’s passage. But this, according to people like Nolan, who has long advocated on behalf of celluloid, is its own kind of death – the death of time, of history, of memory, of death itself. If we’ve achieved immortality, if we have nothing to lose, then what is there to give life meaning? In Interstellar, humans can delay death, maybe even cheat it, but the threat of it is always present, just beyond the horizon; we will always have to fight for survival, each passing moment another step in the inevitable march toward extinction.

             The decline of analog has, perhaps not coincidentally, been accompanied by a second, arguably more troubling cinematic crisis. Hollywood’s stubborn reliance on sprawling, expensive franchises appeared to reach a crescendo this summer when, within two weeks of each other, Warner Bros. and Marvel Studios unveiled their respective superhero movie line-ups, dating all the way to 2020. If all goes according to plan, there will be a whopping 32 superhero flicks released in the next six years – and that’s not counting the ones produced by 20th Century Fox, Sony and other companies. It can be easy for us plebeians to dismiss critics’ concern over announcements like these as the gripes of reactionary, narrow-minded elitists, but the truth is, franchises are devouring the film industry, increasingly at the expense of anything that diverges from the established mold. No matter how much you love The Avengers, Star Wars, Jurassic Park or whatever, it’s disheartening to contemplate a future filled with so many numbers and colons. When Cooper, Interstellar’s astronaut-farmer protagonist, laments that “We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars. Now we just look down and wonder about our place in the dirt,” it feels like a plea and cry of rebellion, daring Hollywood to use its damn imagination and dream bigger. To a lesser extent, Edge of Tomorrow also critiques contemporary filmmaking, putting the audience in the head of a man forced to live the same thing over and over and over again.


Wish for 2015: Tom Cruise learns from his own work and does something, you know, different.

Yet the most memorable apocalyptic fiction of 2014 didn’t come from film. Television has spent the 21st century thus far mired in a plodding yet inexorable shift, its deep-rooted insecurities and rigidity competing with the promise offered by rapidly developing technological innovations. As the emergence of digital filming and editing equipment allowed networks to drastically reduce costs and artists to experiment with form, style and content with a freedom that had once been unfeasible, if not downright impossible, we were rewarded with shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lost, which boasted complex, serialized narratives steeped in mythology and fantasy, as well as 24, whose split-screen device remains unique to this day. In 1998 and 1999, respectively, HBO debuted Sex and the City and The Sopranos, and the cable era was born, ushering in an embarrassing wealth of diverse storytelling, from violent, psychologically intimate dramas like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones to bawdy, profanity-laced comedies like It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Girls. The more creatively fertile television got, however, the less it resembled real television, in the conventional sense. Whereas before, seasons typically adhered to a strict 22-episode model, many shows now air as few as ten or even six episodes a year, and with the rise of anthology and auteur-driven series as well as more sophisticated visual techniques, the line between TV and cinema grows increasingly hazy. As demonstrated by the surprise success of new platforms like Netflix and Amazon, you no longer have to appear on an actual TV channel to qualify as “television,” much to the chagrin of broadcast networks struggling to reconcile their archaic ratings systems with shifting viewer habits. In a way, the famed Golden Age of TV (or, if you want, the Silver Age) is also the story of the medium’s demise.

When True Detective debuted in January, it felt like a denouement of sorts, the convergence of all the trends that had defined television for the past couple decades. Technically a single, self-contained narrative divided into eight parts, HBO’s Southern Gothic-infused neo-noir was touted as the complete, unadulterated vision of creator and sole writer Nic Pizzolatto and involved contributions from numerous individuals with backgrounds in film, including director Cary Fukunaga and actors Woody Harrelson, Matthew McConaughey and Michelle Monaghan. It centered on a tantalizing mystery and made several allusions to obscure philosophers and literary works, turning its viewers into inadvertent detectives who searched obsessively for some deeper meaning much in the way Lost fans did not too long ago. It employed a distinctly cinematic aesthetic, featuring a much-hyped six-minute tracking shot at the end of its fourth episode – incidentally the precise moment it transformed from just another critically acclaimed cable drama into a full-fledged cultural phenomenon.

             It was also about the end of the world, not a literal apocalypse as in The Walking Dead or Sleepy Hollow or even a mass tragedy like The Leftovers, but rather a slow decay of things: reality, relationships, ideals, the environment, patriarchal authority and institutions. Regardless of its other shortcomings, True Detective was a masterpiece of atmosphere, existential dread and sorrow seeping through the lush, desolate Louisiana landscape like humid air, brilliantly distilled into the haunting opening credits. Whenever I think I might be over the show, I remember Rust Cohle’s instant-classic “time is a flat circle” monologue, and even though it’s now been quoted, referenced and parodied to the point of cliché, it still gives me chills. Something about it – the way editor Alex Hall fluidly cross-cuts between timelines, Matthew McConaughey’s hollow drawl, even the redundant phrasing – is enchanting, like floating through a waking dream. No other pop culture this year so accurately conveyed the paralyzing uncertainty of our present existence, agonizingly suspended between the past and future, passivity and agency, despair and hope. There is no monster at the end of the nightmare; there is only the nightmare, repetitive and eternal.











Links:

No comments:

Post a Comment