Where have all the social message movies gone? As I plumb
through the films of 25 years ago I continually come up against movies that
speak to the socio-historical context of the time. Many of these movies have an
agenda. Maybe it’s a lack of hindsight, but I don’t see the same type of issues
movies coming from the studios nowadays. More than likely the answer is to be
found in the fact that the message movies have always been few and far between,
but they are more likely to stand the test of time and be remembered years
later.
Jonathan Kaplan’s Project
X deals with the issue of animal welfare in the context of the military
industrial complex at the tail end of the Cold War. It’s a real do-gooder of a
movie that wants to portray the government and especially the military as cold
and unsparing as you move further up the chain of command. The top officers and
bureaucrats are viewed as calculating and rather inhuman while the enlisted
men, serving as surrogates for the average viewer, are compassionate while they
follow orders.
Matthew Broderick, in his first attempt at a more serious
role, plays Jimmy Garrett, an Air Force airman who gets reassigned to a special
research project after an infraction that, it seems to me, would have gotten
most anyone discharged from the military in the blink of an eye. That he took a
girl up for a flight in an Air Force plane establishes Jimmy as an
insubordinate. He’s someone prone to disobeying orders. Jimmy is only a small
step away from Broderick’s immortal Ferris Bueller, that high school student who
went AWOL and made his school principal look like an ass.
Jimmy is assigned to a pilot training program involving
chimpanzees, one of whom has been sent accidentally from a university research
facility that lost its funding. That chimp’s name is Virgil and has been
trained in sign language by Teri (Helen Hunt) in a prologue that garner’s the
audience’s sympathy for the chimp. Jimmy’s initial job is basically cleaning up
after the apes and taking them to their flying lessons, but he recognizes that
they have individual personalities and gives them all names to match. One thing
I noticed is how the chimps’ behavior is so similar to that of a toddler. These
apes have the intellectual capacity and cognitive abilities of an 18-month-old.
I point this out because it’s a surefire way to make the audience (especially
parents) connect with the apes as characters. We watch and wonder how anyone
could possibly use chimps for such a callous and inhumane experiment.
The film’s point of view is mostly from Jimmy’s
perspective and like him, we don’t know exactly what the chimps are preparing
for. When Jimmy receives a promotion and then discovers upon his first trip
with a chimp down the long hallway to the flight chamber, he’s as shocked as we
are. Perhaps in Cold War 1987, most mature audience members would have guessed
well before this scene what the fate of these chimps was. Anyway, it’s a bit
unbelievable that Jimmy is sent in to that situation without being briefed
ahead of time.
The head of the project is a Dr. Carroll (William Sadler),
who comes across first as a typical bureaucrat who is unwilling to listen. He doesn’t
care in the least that Jimmy has witnessed Virgil communicating with sign
language nor does he think it’s significant. He brushes it off as if the chimp
is little more than a circus-trained animal. But Jane Goodall had already done the
majority of her research by this time. It was already well established that
chimps could learn sign language and that they had feelings similar to humans.
Dr. Carroll would most certainly have been aware of that fact, especially considering
his involvement in a project that uses the animals.
The screenplay by Stanley Weiser from a story by him and
Lawrence Lasker (who wrote the undervalued WarGames)
is generally smart and maintains a good flow. It engenders one of my favorite
traits of Hollywood films prior to about 1990 – there’s little to no
unnecessary fat and filler in the story. It is presents only what is essential
to the story and keeps the running time below two hours. The writing doesn’t
resort to false sentimentality or cue the audience how to feel. That job is
left to James Horner, whose score is at times haunting and at others plaintive
and moving. It’s the direct forerunner to his Titanic score, but also incorporates themes used in Aliens.
It’s director Jonathan Kaplan who pushes the
ham-handedness, especially in the third act. He sprinkles little stylistic
camera devices throughout the film: the occasional tilted angle or chimp point
of view shot that don’t really fit with the visual composition of the rest of
the film. Then in the end when the chimps manage to escape from their cages and
wreak havoc on the lab the move goes a little off the rails. Kaplan’s direction
treats it as goofy comedy, a severe departure from the more serious tone that
comes before. The film then closes with a sequence so preposterous it threatens
to derail the entire story.
Project X could
be regarded as a minor success. It hasn’t really lived on as evidenced by the
recent release of a film with an identical title but a story that could hardly
be more distant. But it sits on the shelf of history as an example of a studio
film that didn’t pander to the audience and relied on good acting. Broderick
always was a charismatic actor. But even the secondary roles like Hunt and
Sadler are believable. There are no cardboard one-dimensional villains like
Stephen Lang in Avatar, which I
mention only because he has a small role in this film. It’s worth seeking out
as a break from the horrors of today’s Hollywood.
No comments:
Post a Comment