Tomorrowland (2015)
PG3 Stars out of 5
Director Brad Bird
Writer Damon Lindelhof, Brad Bird
Cinematography Claudio Miranda
Music Michael Giacchino
George Clooney Frank Walker
Hugh Laurie Governor Nix
Britt Robertson Casey Newton
Raffey Cassidy Athena
To be sure, a movie rooted in a section of a famous theme
park has a big challenge in front of the writer: how does one write a
compelling story that utilizes the theme park and its inherently rosy view of
the future without descending into drivel. This is clearly not an easy task,
and I give full credit to Bird and Damon Lindelhof as the writers in crafting a
story around that sense of wonder and optimism to found at Disneyland’s
Tomorrowland, and in placing it in
counterpoint to the growing sense of distress felt by so many Americans as they
watch the daily news on TV. Bird and Lindelhof have written a story that describes a
parallel world built by scientists and artists sometime around the end of the 19th
century. This alternate world has advanced technologically far more quickly
than the grey, humdrum world we all live in. They have flying trains, gravity
defying swimming pools, and rocket ships that look remarkably like Disney’s old
“Voyage to the Moon” ride. That is all well and good; we are talking about a
movie inspired by a theme park after all. But what is a little unnerving about
the underpinnings of this alternate world is the sense of elitism that underlies this
alternate world’s creation and governance. Those poor scientists (Edison,
Tesla, et. al.) had to leave our world where they and their science were
underappreciated.
We first meet that alternate world’s Governor Nix (Hugh Lurie) at
the 1964 World’s Fair in New York. A young inventor, Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson)
tries to interest the Governor in his flying machine – a backpack rocket device
made from two Elextrolux vacuum cleaner canisters. The governor’s not
interested, but his young assistant, Athena is. She manages to get Frank to
Tomorrowland, the alternate universe world where she and the Governor come
from. The story then jumps forward 50 years or so to the present where we meet
the twenty-something, Casey. She is a young dreamer intent on going to space.
Like Frank she is “recruited” by Athena, who is still a young girl. Thus begins
an oddly violent and philosophically disconnected series of battles fought by the
grown up Frank (George Clooney), Athena, and Casey against Nix and his minions. How did a story that
preaches optimism in the face of despair turn into a series of scenes where
homicidal robots (“audio-animatronic” robots in keeping with the Disney
nomenclature) blast into non-existence first responders and anyone else that
might seem to oppose the now murderous Governor Nix?
There is sci-fi artwork inspired by the Art Deco movement in
some scenes, while others rely heavily on a Disney version of sleeping beauty’s
castle brought into the future. This movie can be artistically clever, and
while it is pointless to criticize the science, it is not pointless to decry the uneven
philosophy/morality propounded overtly and covertly throughout this movie. I fully
embrace any vision that argues for optimism with regards the future. Yes, let’s
not give up in the face of global climate change, but fight to the end the
right of those living on this planet to preserve it. To make such an
argument is almost the only reason I don’t give this movie a lower score than
the one I have given it. But when you have a group that seem to also have the
upper moral plane in your movie such as those that live in Tomorrowland, and
then have their leader to both extol the value of science in finding a way to a
happier life and then to condemn those left on Earth to their fate since they
are “savages” and thus deserve no
less; especially when that same leader is the one manipulating events to bring
about their demise. What a strange messenger for both hope in the future and disregard
for others Bird and Lindelhof have created in Nix. It seems almost like an
argument for not just the disregarded elites to survive but to also be the sole survivors.
The counter-argument could be made that Nix is merely the “bad
guy” and Frank the “good guy”. It should surprise no reader who will win in the
end. Maybe it is that simple: Frank’s vision is the one that
prevails and Nix with his negative connoting name and vision get squished.
Perhaps, but the sense of elite entitlement/victimhood is a theme that passes
through this movie extensively and I end up with the nagging feeling that Nix
was onto something in Bird’s mind but that he just needed to tweak it up a bit.
The other aspect that is seriously disturbing is the relationship between Frank
and Athena. Young Frank not realizing that Athena was a robot fell in love with
her in a touching young love kind of way. By the time the 60 year old and now aware Frank
re-meets the still nine year old appearing Athena, his love for her is hardly
less dissipated. Okay, science fiction, so what are you going to do? I don’t
know, but the scene where the elder Frank cradles the dying Athena is a good
definition of creepy- not unrequited-love. When (spoiler alert), he drops her into an infernal machine in order
to blow herself up and the machine with it, I am left speechless at the weirdness of
this whole scene. Clearly intended to be sentimental, the scene ends up being
simply uniquely strange.
Whether to watch “Tomorrowland” or not, will depend on one’s
interest in FX vs. story. The special effects are impressive and fun to watch.
The scenes where Athena’s magical World’s Fair pin allows Casey to jump
from our world to Tomorrowland in a visual sense but not in a physical sense is the FX
center-point of the movie and partly what attracted me to movie in the first
place. The other aspect that attracted me is George Clooney’s acting, and in
this movie he is first rate. The scenes Clooney are in are believable despite
the writing. However, his acting and the FX do not for me out-weigh the
negative effects of a movie that so loosely grips its moral and philosophical
foundations. “Tomorrowland” is a visually interesting but cinematically
troubling movie that I cannot really recommend.
No comments:
Post a Comment