|
|
At The Picture Show
|
August 2007
. . . From Jack Finney's cold dead hands
The fourth time around, 'The Invasion' doesn't seem so scary anymore
The Invasion
Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Screenplay: Dave Kajganich, based on the novel The Body Snatchers, by Jack
Finney
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Jeremy Northam, Jackson Bond, Jeffrey
Wright, Veronica Cartwright and Celia Weston
Rated PG-13 / 1 hour, 33 minutes
Opened August 17, 2007
(out of four)
Maybe the problem isn't necessarily in the idea of another Body Snatchers
incarnation. Sure, I've railed against the Remake Generation long and hard, but I
can keep an open mind. So let's say, for the sake of open-mindedness, that the
story - first brought to screen in Don Siegel's legendary Invasion of the Body
Snatchers in 1956 - is perfectly ripe for another modernized update.
But if the flaw isn't in the thinking behind Oliver Hirschbiegel's The Invasion, it's
certainly in the execution. I can only hypothesize as to what could potentially have
been done with the film to justify its existence. I'm left only with what has been
done. The "modern twists," if you will, are as simple as a Bush-targeted political
allegory and CSI-type science to provide a convenient out. And the film's
"modern" approach is only to map the story onto a painfully hackneyed structural
form.
Surely people must have been questioning
themselves when this is all they could come up with for a modern update. After
all, when the original has been re-made as recently as 1993, one has to wonder
how many directions and visions one premise can actually have. The Invasion
shows the wear and tear of an overly rehashed idea.
But we're being open-minded. The story itself is known for its "bone-chilling
suspense" (a favorite term among reviewers) and even its satirical bite, and that
story is still in place: society gets overrun with alien beings who take over our
bodies, turning you, me and our neighbors into soulless, emotionless,
dehumanized versions of ourselves. As we saw in the first two cinematic versions
- the original and Philip Kaufman's 1978 remake - such a premise lends itself to a
movie adversary far different from the norm. The very blandness of these snatched
bodies, the unassuming calm we see in their eyes, makes for a completely
disarming villain. The threat is in the almost-convincing appearance of a non-threat.
But in this Invasion, where is that mystery? Where
is that chilling disquiet? It shows up in fits and starts during the film's opening
passages (which are too awkwardly cobbled together to make for a coherent set-up, but provide a few arresting moments nonetheless), but disappears in favor of
the unwanted intrusion of plot mechanics. Once the wheels are set in motion, the
film never builds on the eeriness of the premise. Instead, the script puts the
characters on auto-pilot, behaving exactly as if they are in a Movie Plot.
So after the exposition gets out of the way, the actual body snatchers, these "new
and improved" humans, are no longer actually important. They're just another
standard-fare Movie Monster, and the whole thing turns into just another Conflict,
with a standard-fare Heroine (Save son! Get safely to military base! Collect 200
dollars!) and a standard-fare resolution. I relate it to the recent American remake
of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Pulse - the mystery, meaning and substance are pulled out
simply because it's easier to run through easy-to-identify character motivations
and convenient answers. As I wrote in my review of that film, the originally potent
idea gets turned into just another Problem that needs to be solved, another Villain
that needs to be stopped. Obviously, it is a problem, and obviously we want to
solve it - but do we really have to get there that quickly and that easily?
Nicole Kidman better hope her upcoming The
Golden Compass is good, because after her recent string of flops, The Invasion
isn't helping things. She does what she can as our protagonist, Dr. Carol Bennell,
a psychiatrist trying to rescue her son from her "ex-husband" and trying, along
with trusty friend Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig), to get to a military base where
anonymous government scientists are working on a vaccine. (Really? That's the
best idea they could think up?)
But never did anyone behind this movie come up with any real reason why it was
worth the time, money and effort to bring this story back to the screen. And as
much as I'm wary of our growing reliance on remakes, it could be done. We could
relate this to the impersonalized digital age. Or to the facelessness of globalism.
Or to the powerful effects of dehumanization in general. (Admittedly, it's not my
job to determine what a film should have done, only to judge what it did do - all
I'm saying is it should have done something.)
To be fair, the film tries, weakly, to examine some
points about human nature and what makes us human - with an effective visual
representation of the "body snatchers" staring coldly our way - but that never
really gets off the ground. It's never underlined in any way that makes it essential
to the story or characters.
Though I never saw Abel Ferrara's '93 version of the film (I will soon), the first
two definitely leave a deep impression. Admittedly, I haven't seen them in several
years and now look forward to revisiting them. I can't say these movies didn't
have some problems of their own. But what is clear is that they had clear
identities, separate of one another, both effectively suspenseful and interesting in
their own rights. The Invasion - even with an $80 million budget and re-shoots
reportedly overseen by the Wachowskis - can't ever seem to find its own reason
for being.
Read more by Chris Bellamy