The Hunt for Red October

As I was writing about John McTiernan's 'Die Hard', I could not stop thinking about his 1990 film, 'The Hunt for Red October'. Originally I just wanted to say a few words about this Sean Connery-Alec Baldwin gem, yet I finally decided that it deserves an article of its own. This espionage thriller does bring back a lot of childhood memories for me, because we have a laserdisc version of this film at home. In fact, I have always been a big fan of submarine films. Though I think Wolfgang Petersen's 'Das Boot' will always be the number one submarine film, 'Red October' is also a memorable one for me. I have a great respect for the military officers who work inside the submarine. To work in such a claustrophobic and stressful area, one certainly needs commitment, courage, skills and a positive outlook to take in the pressure - both physically and mentally!

As a famous adaptation from Tom Clancy's 'Jack Ryan' series, 'Red October' is a spy thriller with quite a lot of action and suspense. The fact that the story takes place in the Cold War era makes it even more thrilling , because if anyone on both sides of the ideological camp send out a wrong message, it can lead to catastrophic consequences for the whole world. Indeed, the film was first released in 1990, the time that marked the end of the Soviet Union. The appeal to the audience from the 1990s probably led to the film's box office success and popularity. Even if we watch 'Red October' nowadays, that is still interesting as a comparison to the current US-Russia relations, though I do not aim to go too far into the political questions here.

The tense story took place in 1984, and it was about the Russian Captain Marko Ramius (Sean Connery). He was the captain of 'Red October', which was a fictionalized version of a type of Soviet submarine. The name of the submarine really symbolized the Soviet Union nicely. Ramius, due to some unspecified reasons, directed his submarine towards the US territory. People on both sides of the Cold War were really nervous, because they had absolutely no idea what Ramius' motivation was. Could that be his desire to start World War III ?! Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin), who was a CIA analyst, suggested otherwise: he hypothesized that Ramius' reason was because he wanted to defect to the US. Hence, Ryan's superior decided to give him an opportunity to prove that. Ryan had to brave himself onto a US submarine, and tried his best to contact Ramius . Time was running out, because the Soviet Union has declared Ramius a regenade and requested the US side to stop his submarine or destoryed that if the situation called for it. On the other hand, another Soviet submarine was on the way to intercept and possibly destoryed the 'Red October'. What would eventually come out of this under-water thrill ride, and after all what was Ramius' true motivation?

Jack Ryan is probably Tom Clancy's masterstroke as an author of fiction. This character has a career trajectory crazier than President Trump's, all the way from marine officer to investment broker to CIA officer to the President of United States! Jack Ryan has been portrayed by a number of great actors throughout the many films that chronicle his adventure - Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, Chris Pine and many more in the future. I don't know why, but I always find Baldwin to be a better Jack Ryan than Ford, though I suppose many will first think of Ford when they hear about Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford can give cool and restrained performance like Han Solo and Rick Deckard, resourceful and analytical at the same time, yet I think Alec Baldwin seems to portray the mindset of Jack Ryan better here - who uses insight, intelligence and interpersonal skills to solve problems rather than sheer force. It is a shame Baldwin has only starred in one Jack Ryan film because that is quite an iconic role for him. I think Ryan's power originates from the fact that he can effectively connect with and convince others, to address the common interests even if the two parties are seen as adversaries to each other. In the scene when Ryan demonstrated that he understood and could speak Russian, he stated that one should understand more about their enemies by getting closer, which was clearly a military wisdom advocated by Sun Tzu. Ryan clearly has contributed a lot to the successful escape by the crew members on 'Red October' and also eliminated the undercover agent, who exposed the whereabout of 'Red October' and then attempted to conduct a counterattack on US with a missile.   

Sean Connery, who starred as Captain Ramius, was just as smashing as Baldwin. Sir Connery has always been an actor with charisma, no wonder he was the first ever James Bond! He has made a bit of a come back in the late 1980s, by starring in films like 'The Untouchables' , 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' and 'Red October'. Ramius is the embodiment of military genius. While he has possessed a strategic mind and loads of experience, he was also calm and assertive even at the face of extreme adversity. The sequence when the 'Red October' attempted to escape from a torpedo serves as a great example, and that is a scene I really like. The sequence illustrated the excellent craftsmanship from McTiernen when the filmmaker was creating exicting and suspenseful sequences. With a series of fast cuts, the shots were fragmented and focused on both the interior - with all the different members in the submarine - and the exterior. When the camera focused on Ramius, he was staged in the foreground with a shallow depth of field, and the camera was held very tight and static on his face, signifying his authority and control of the situation. The other characters were often showed with more mobile dolly shots, which illustrated their fear and anxiety regarding the potential collision by the torpedo. The stark contrast was also complemented by the aural effects of the sonar - a reminder of high school physics - which sent out the warning about the approach of the torpedo. McTiernen was able to use all these techniques to put the audience members on the edge, and it also further painted the image the battle-hardened Ramius.

It turned out that Ramius was not the bad guy, he just wanted to defect to US because he embraced the liberal values provided by the spirit. Ramius had idealistic beliefs regarding his country and he could see the negatives implications for the new type of submarine he was leading. As a man who has worked for many decades in the submarine, he was also disillusioned about the political aspect of the Cold War, and could not see any ideal future provided by his country. I guess Captain Ramius is indeed quite a positive character, because not only he possesses intelligence and power, he also shares an universal outlook regarding humanity. He finds contradiction in a blind patriotism and a desire for liberty, and he eventually makes his decision and arrives at USA with Jack Ryan. 

So, welcome to the New World, Sir!    

Film Analysis

Die Hard

I have recently written a lot of articles about a number of films which explore serious and rather dark themes. This darkness is still lurking around in more entertaining films like 'Wall E', 'Akira', and 'Full Metal Jacket'. As the great psychologist Carl Jung has illustrated, the co-existence of light and shadow is the ultimate reality that governs human experience. Therefore if I have made you aware of the dark sides of human nature, I am also committed to show you the positive sides of humanity - our courage, intelligence, creativity in solving problems and resilience. Since now it is summer I decide to introduce a number of entertaining films that I enjoyed at a young age. This time I will start with an action classic I really love - John McTiernan's 'Die Hard' (1988)!

Though you may have the impression that I have always been fascinated by art films and more serious films, I am just as much a big fan in commercial cinema, especially the action and adventure genre (never a big fan in rom-com). After all, Arnold Schwarzenegger is my favorite actor of all time and I have tremendous respect for his many work and achievements. I am a really fanatic of the films from the 1980s and early 1990s, because that is the era I came from. From that 15 years or so I can find numerous classic films I can come back to watch again and again without any diminishment in terms of pleasure. There are loads of action films from around the world, be it John Woo, Ringo Lam, James Cameron, Paul Verhoeven, John McTiernan and so on, they are all filmmakers I admire. Speaking of John McTiernan, I would definitely recommend his trio from 1987 to 1990 - 'Predator', 'Die Hard' and 'The Hunt For Red October'. All 3 are classics in the action genre and you will derive tremendous pleasure from watching them, yet it is more than simple entertainment. A thing in common for the 3 films is that they are all intelligent films, in terms of the plot and also the execution of the film sequences. While I do not think Mr. McTiernan will be seen as being in the same group as Bergman or Tarkovsky, his achievement and talent as a filmmaker will be remembered for many years to come, and I am sure his greatest films will be celebrated by both film buffs and common audience alike. I will deal with the Arnold classic 'Predator' next time; here I will first talk about the Bruce Willis classic 'Die Hard'.

I believe most of you have definitely heard of 'Die Hard' before, as it has inspired many sequels over the years. Indeed, the very first installment of Die Hard came out in 1988, and it has established itself as a classic in the action and adventure genre. It has become a standard example of a great action film and also a technically proficient work, which received 4 technical Oscar nominations. 'Die Hard' is cinematic a dynamite loaded with thrill, suspense, and excitement, and there are quite a number of bumps throughout the thrill ride! The claustrophobic environment from the skyscraper only added fuel to the showdown between good and evil. Bruce Willis, who is the cop John McClane in the film, becomes an iconic character and probably the actor's most memorable role in cinema.

If you are not enough with the action films, let me give you some further recommendations. Other than 'Predator' and 'The Hunt for Red October', another film I quite enjoy is Steven Seagel's ‘Under Siege' (1992), famously coined as 'Die Hard on a battleship'. Again the claustrophobic environment coupled with a loose cannon starring Tommy Lee Jones should give plenty of pleasure for the viewers. I am also a big fan of Paul Verhoeven, and I love his great film with Arnold, 'Total Recall', which is crazy and violent; and of course the original 'Robocop' in 1987. For military fans I recommend Arnold's 'Commando', which has become a cult classic, and 'Rambo'  1 and 2 - the filmmaker George S. Cosmatos was quite a great director for action films. Rambo 3 is a bit corny really.

The classic film is based on a simple scenario. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is heading to meet his ex-wife at a party in a skyscraper during Christmas. Unfortunately, a team of experienced terrorists, led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman's most famous role other than Prof. Snape), took hostage of the building and demanded a hefty ransom. McClane, who is just in the bathroom at that point, becomes alone and he is committed to save the day from this evil guys. All the odds are against him, including the fact that he is barefoot, wearing a white singlet that the image will become imprinted in the audience's psyche, and no ammunition, that is exactly the way he likes that! Will this one-man-team defeat the bad guys?

'Die Hard' is such a fun and straight-forward film that no one needs to be pretentious to philosophize about the deeper meanings of the film, so I will just randomly share my thoughts and give some cultural references to it. Other than the simplistic 'good versus evil' theme, I believe McTiernan wants the audience to explore the dynamics between individual and group. First off, that is an intelligent show down between McClane and Gruber, the embodiment of 'good' and 'evil', because both are resourceful and intelligent characters, and watching them battle it out is a bit witnessing a game of chess between 2 master players. Both sides want to trap the opponent into miscalculations, and both can fall down and suffer minor losses at certain moments throughout the lock up. McClane is obvious - throughout the film he is the symbol of individualism, because he is forced into a situation. Though we can argue that a cop from other the building is helping him out a bit in terms of communication, most of the times he is fighting first hand and alone, and he has to face 10 or so terrorists who are professional in the use of firearms, strategy and psychological techniques. McClane is indeed very intelligent and organized as a fighter for goodness. He sneaks through and observes the dynamics of the working of the terrorist team, and eliminated them one by one, also giving taunting remarks to perturb the team spirit of these terrorists. He did get himself into trouble - for example the famous glass in feet situation, when Gruber discovered that McClane was barefoot, which is certainly nasty for the audience to think of (good job, Mr. McTiernan). Yet, what is great about McClane is his resilience and perseverance to achieve his aim. Despite the pain and stress all the way, he kept coming back and fought harder against the bad guys. We don't need a philosopher to convince us that McClane is a hero. McTiernan has painted the other characters - the head of the corporation, the boyfriend who wanted to cooperate with the terrorists, the chief police officers, and media - as incompetent, because I think he wants to celebrate the individualism one can really find from McClane.

Hans Gruber, beautifully portrayed by Alan Rickman, is the antithesis of McClane. While being as resourceful and strong-willed as his nemesis, Gruber represented the face of corporate approach, or like the corporate business the terrorists are targeting. While no one should endorse the criminal activities of the terrorists, it is quite obvious that Gruber's team is very professional, and they work really 'great' in a criminal way. Gruber believes in a strong organization for his terrorist activities. Indeed, the memorable scene where the whole team of terrorists arrive in an elevator is a great representation of that spirit. He knows that all the members in the team have to co-ordinate well together in order to succeed for their criminal deeds. Someone to hold up the guests at gun point; someone to intercept the signals of communication; someone to distract the police; and someone to negotiate for the ransom. Gruber clearly is experienced and have carefully planned for the whole hostage-taking situation in detail beforehand. If McClane is not in the equation, these terrorists would likely succeed. Indeed, I think McTiernan has portrayed Gruber rather accurately as a terrorist of the 1970s and 1980s, which the aim is often money-oriented. The terrorists and aircraft hijackers usually had a clear objective - often a ransom or political aim - and they are less likely to kill hostages if their demands can be met or delayed through some form of ongoing negotiation. It is very different from the lone-wolf terrorism nowadays, because in this case the attacker has already written his ending for the story - his own death (or 'sacrifice' he would prefer to say) and maximum carnage to those around him. In a twisted sense of morality and psychology, the terrorist is ready to give up his life, and he believes this sacrifice will justify his killing of further hostages. I believe some of the sequels of 'Die Hard', and the terrorist films in the past 10 years or so are often exploring this change in the face of terrorism.

In fact, the interaction between McClane and Gruber not only increases the tension of the narrative, it also further explores the point I talk about in the last paragraph. It is great to see that McTiernan did not leave their encounter until the climax, and the director has given the characters a continuing conversation regarding heroism throughout the film. Gruber, as a believer for the teamwork of his group, mocked McClane many times regarding his individualism by referring to Western films, coining McClane 'Mr. Cowboy' and some sort of security guard who is looking for trouble. McClane retorted and was quite proud of his gumption against all these terrorists, and often taunted the terrorists when he has scored points against them (not only the Double Jeopardy, but also killing them), like writing 'I have got a gun hohoho' over a dead body. Gruber and McClane did meet once face to face after the final showdown. At that point, Gruber pretended to be a guest who has been lost somehow, yet McClane certainly knew better than that from his experience as a cop. Acting in an absent-mindedly manner, McClane handed Gruber a gun for protection, and when Gruber attempted to gun McClane down from the back, there are no bullets inside. That shows McClane's cunningness, and clearly his act of handing the gun is deliberate. It is a test to see if his own hypothesis regarding Gruber's identity is true or not. Gruber was lucky at that point, because one of his henchman, Karl, rushed in and engaged a shootout with McClane, where Gruber could escape and soon after detonate a bomb, leading to the famous scene of McClane jumping down the exploding building in a bungee jump style - simply the most wonderful moment in the whole film!

Speaking of Karl, he is also an interesting character in his own right, because he also challenged the notion of team-playing for the terrorists. As a great marksman, he was very good at the firearms and it was very clear that he was capable to work alone. He seemed to be a bit of a loose cannon, because he had a strong hatred for cops and he also wanted revenge and hence took the situation very personal. Karl's lone warrior persona has generated some tension between himself and Gruber, because Gruber has the feelings this hot head might go out of control and screwed up the master plan. In a rather dark way, I think McTiernan also 'celebrated' Karl's individualism, because not only he was probably the only character who could cause some damage to McClane, the director also gave him the last laugh (spoilers). In a twist, he survived even after the Gruber the big boss has died, and shot his way out of the building, only to be gunned down by McClane and his comrade.

I would like to comment on the final showdown between McClane and Gruber, as that is an interesting cultural reference that enhances the theme of the film. Award of the fact that McClane's ex-wife was among the hostages, Gruber knows that the only way to lead to a checkmate is by holding her at gunpoint and lure McClane to come out. In the trash-talking phase of this encounter (this is a Hollywood film after all), Gruber surmised that, 'Looks like John Wayne will not ride into the sunset with Grace Kelly'. As if getting pissed by Gruber’s lapse in cinematic facts, McClane angrily pointed out that the guy is ‘Gary Cooper’, not John Wayne. It is an interesting cultural reference that I think is more than a mere tribute, and interestingly, Kubrick also used ‘John Wayne’ as a satirical term a lot in ‘Full Metal Jacket’, which was released a year before ‘Die Hard’. The reference to the old cowboy scenario is fascinating because that reminds us of Fred Zinnemann’s ‘High Noon’, which starred Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. ‘High Noon’ and ‘Die Hard’ shared a similar theme of individualism against adversity. In ‘High Noon’, the sheriff starred by Cooper is fighting alone against a group of professional bandits, who are coming back in town to exact revenge on him. No one was willing to help because they did not want to get involved in any dirty business, which at that time was a critique on the indifference towards McCarthyism and the conformist attitude advocated by the Eisenhower presidency. Some will even go further to celebrate Cooper’s sheriff as an existential hero, which kind of remind us of Sartre’s ideas, for example. The way John Wayne came into the picture was that he and his filmmaker friend, Howard Hawks, were never a big fan of ‘High Noon’, though the Zinnemann film has won a number of Academy Awards. The duo did not agree to the fact that the hero was so incompatible and could not find any kind of assistance around the place, because they firmly believed in the importance of team work and professionalism. That was why they made ‘Rio Bravo’ as a response to ‘High Noon’. Anyway, McClane’s situation was very similar to the cowboy film, because McTiernan was celebrating the courage and individualistic will from this protagonist. John McClane’s wife was also very clever because she was brave enough to distract Gruber, giving enough time for McClane to kill him with a concealed gun. In ‘High Noon’, that was also Grace Kelly’s ‘Quaker wife’ character who turned out to be the most helpful character to help the sheriff to defeat the bandits. Well, that runs in the family, right?

So, channel out a bit of your gumption, get yourself a few cheesy one-linear, have your ‘yippie-ki-yay’ moment and go for it!

Die Hard - 30th Anniversary

Film Analysis

Akira

Does enlightenment lead to a brighter future, or just another round of darkness from hell? Can the prosperity of the cityscape contain the rawest, most psychopathic energy in all of us? Is it fair for any of us to suspect about conspiracy, as we cannot even battle the desire and greed so familiar to humanity? In the 1980s, a comic series has successfully captured and explored all these stingy little questions that have always hidden in the darkest corners of humanity. The author of the series went as far to direct an animated feature from that in 1988, and that has become a modern classic in animation, cyberpunk and sci-fi in general. That film is one of my favorite animated features of all time - Katsuhiro Otomo’s ‘AKIRA’ (1988)!

‘Akira’ is the most famous work from the Japanese comic artist and filmmaker Katsuhiro Otomo. Being a big fan in both comic and cinema since a young age, Otomo started working in comic in the 1970s. He devised the cyberpunk comic series of ‘Akira’ in around 1980, and eventually he decided to make a cinematic version of his masterpiece. It is noteworthy to see that the animated feature is quite different in terms of plot to the comic, so that is definitely a good reason to watch the film because that will not be repetitive in any sense. In fact, this is a visual spectacle I recommend to anyone who enjoys cinema and comic alike. Though dealing with the darker aspect of humanity, the film is very beautiful and stylized, though there are so pretty crazy and violent (I mean R-Rated ones, not those petty PG-13 ones) moments. That is the sort of ‘cinematic LSD’ that will heighten you up to another realm. I do remember vividly the first viewing of this visual dynamite on Laser Disc – there was a long, long time ago. The images in the film have made a very lasting impression on me, as if they have been imprinted onto my mind. I suppose this type of cinematic education really contributes to my passion for cinema afterwards! Visual spectacles apart, the messages behind ‘Akira’ are also very thought-provoking and totally relevant to the issues of the modern condition. Technology versus superstition, rationality versus psychopathy, as you will see the success of ‘Akira’ plays on these yin-yang relationships. Maybe my only complaint about this film is the way Tokyo is destroyed – that expanding hemispheric energy kind of recall integral calculus and that is a bit corny. Nevertheless, I have to admit that is still a pretty memorable opening scene.

‘It’s Disney on PCP, mean, rotten, psychotic, but incredibly vivid.’  - Stephen Hunter, Baltimore Sun.

Let’s get into a bit of background regarding the inspirations and influence of ‘Akira’, as we can then appreciate its place in the cinematic universe. As stated before, Otomo is well-versed in the knowledge of comics as well as cinema, as one can easily see the creation of ‘Akira’ was based on many inspirations he has come to be aware of. For example, Otomo is known to be a big fan of the Japanese robot comic ‘Tetsujin-28 Go’. Not only the names of the characters in Akira are homages to the robot comic, the number ‘28’ also serves an important purpose in both manga. Indeed, even the storyline has parallels – which is about the destruction of an old world and the emergence of new powers and the wave of struggle between good and evil that follows. In terms of the Western culture, Otomo has cited the French comic artist, Moebius, as an influence; and he also enjoys a number of New Hollywood era films such as ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ and ‘Easy Rider’, where they have anti-establishment tones. In fact, Otomo seems to have a love for stories regarding conspiracy, as ‘Akira’ and ‘Steamboy’ – kind of a period version of ‘Akira’ – both involve corrupted politics and controversial use of science. But there is one particular influence I would like to elaborate on – that is the influence from American filmmaker Nicholas Ray, and one of his most famous films, ‘Rebel Without  A Cause’. Otomo has admired Ray’s work and if we really look into both films, there are indeed quite a lot of similarities in terms of style and also content. In the second part of this article series I will compare ‘Akira’ and ‘Rebel Without A Cause’ side-by-side.

Not only ‘Akira’ has a lot of connections with many famous and iconic films and comics, it is also an iconic film which has influenced many subsequent films from the science fiction genre. A film immediately comes to mind is Shinya Tsukamoto’s ‘Tetsuo’, where it deals with the theme of transformation and the protagonist serves the name with one of the key characters in ‘Akira’. Filmmakers of ‘Ghost in the Shell’, ‘The Matrix’, ‘Dark City’ and others have cited inspirations from ‘Akira’. Indeed, just like ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘The Terminator’, ‘Akira’ is among the key films that have shaped the way we look at the sub-genre of cyberpunk nowadays.

The story of Akira took place in an alternative universe, where Tokyo was destroyed spectacularly by a massive, spherical and expanding explosion in 1988. While the scenario did recall nightmares back in the time of studying differential equations, that was indeed a shocking way to start a movie. After surviving the ordeal of a World War III, a city known as Neo-Tokyo emerged from the ruins and clutters. Considering a sightseeing trip? Not for me. This place was indeed pretty fxxked up, because it was rampant with crime, teenager gang problems, pollution and worse still, a corrupt government consisting of greedy politicians and scientists. The year is 2019. Kaneda, who is a teenager and leads a biker gang, associates with Tetsuo, his childhood friend. While the gang is doing battle with a rival gang during the night, Tetsuo's motorcycle accidentally crashed onto a kid called Takashi. This kid was abducted by some members of a resistant organization, because he possessed a special psychic power, and was used for secret experiment by the government. As a result Tetsuo was also captured by the Colonel, Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) , back to the government for potential experimentation. Soon after, Kaneda met Kei, a member of the resistant group, and they became friends.

It turned out that Tetsuo is just as strong as his name implies (that means 'iron male' literally), and he possesses his fair share of psychic abilities. Indeed, his power is so strong that it can be compared to 'Akira', designated as sample number 28, the esper responsible for the 1988 destruction. After a failed attempt to escape, Tetsuo found himself in the custody and stranded in the hospital, yet his hallucinations started to get the better of him and Tetsuo started to unleash his power, injuring some of the guards and fighting off the fellow espers who attempted to stop him. While Tetsuo's power escalated, he decided to go to the construction site of the Olympic Stadium, which is the place where the remains of Akira were stored cryogenically. Wishing to harness the power from Akira, Tetsuo acquired the alpha killer status and caused major destruction all the way through Neo-Tokyo. Kaneda, joining force with Kei and the other espers, decides that they all have to work together to battle against Tetsuo, and the Colonel, recognizing his sense of responsibility, also rebels against the government and assembles his troops to stop Tetsuo, and that involves the use of a laser satellite (!!). The final showdown in the Stadium is inevitable, and as I will assure the readers, pretty crazy and out of this world. Will Kaneda and the others be able to stop the telepathic Iron-Man? 

What really strikes me about 'Akira' is the technical accomplishment it has achieved given that it is not even a live-action film. When watching at a young age, I was already in awe of how stunning and beautiful this anime could be, even I still have not yet developed a serious interest in cinema or film criticism. As I come back to this film throughout the years, I start to appreciate the style so unique to this cyberpunk classic. 'Akira' is such a cinematic film - the style is comparable to those found in classic cinema, and Otomo's approach is so dynamic and almost poetic - he was literally composing poetry out of movement in 'Akira'. The making of the film was actually even more ambitious, as the original intention was to film it on 70mm film gauge. That was comparable to a scope often found in the epic film genre.

'Akira' is considered as a 'Tech Noir', which is a hybrid between sci-fi and film noir. Our old friends, 'Blade Runner' and 'The Terminator', are 2 further classic examples of this category. Another great word is of course 'cyberpunk', which, in a nutshell, is 'high tech versus low life'. As can be inferred from these categorizations, the most successful aspect about 'Akira' is the stark contrast it has demonstrated throughout the whole film. I guess this approach is quite essential for the content of the film, because to me the central theme of 'Akira' can be summarized in a phrase : power and its control. The whole film is defined by various type of power struggles, and they tend in come in pairs. Science / superstition, individual / institution, psychic power / technology, ethics / corruption, and also the conflicts between various characters and parties. Everyone in the film was fighting for power in one way or another, and the tension was enhanced by the unique style in the film. The central theme of the film will be discussed in the second article, now let's focus on the style.

The high contrast style in 'Akira' represents a delicate balance between 2 styles: Expressionism and Realism. This approach is often found in the genre of Film Noir, and the sensibility of 'Akira' is pretty close to that. While 'Akira' is a colored film, the color tone can be considered expressionistic, and there is a lot of emphasis on shadows and backlighting to expose the underbelly of neo-Tokyo. The artificial colored light emphasized the man-made environment of the cityscape and somehow heightened the danger inherent in this future world. Very much like, or I guess as an inspiration from, Nicholas Ray's 'Rebel without A Cause', 'Akira' is dominated by the color red. From Kaneda's clothing to the reddish haze and color tone throughout the film, the red color signifies urgency, energy and passion. It enhances the desperation which is faced by the characters regarding yet another possible apocalypse. Furthermore, the cultural style also represents a juxtaposition of future and retro, just like 'Blade Runner'.  While abound with all sorts of cutting-edge technology, the world in 'Akira' is just as obsessed with issues beyond rationality - telekinetic powers, superstitions and so on. The interaction of the future with the past gives 'Akira' a postmodern touch.

A lot of cinematic techniques have been employed, in many cases they are used to portray the more dynamic and violent moments. Fast cuts, use of slow motion, point-of-view shots, angular shots, and tracking shots can be found in the film and they enhance the dynamic feel and energy in this cinematic dynamite. One of my favorite scenes in the film is the one when Kaneda and Kei tried to escape from the sewer facility with the hijacking of a hovering bike. With the extremely mobile scenes and also the fast cut, that emphasized the dynamic action through a claustrophobic area. The splattering water, coupled with the loudness and brightness of the machine gun fire, constructed a cinematic poiesis which is much more than the average action films.

Another memorable scene is the one when Tetsuo attempted to escape from the hospital. Due to hallucinations, he experienced a fast montage of all sort of weird images, and this expressionistic feel is something one may expect from psychological films like 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari'. Tetsuo becomes more emotionally unstable, due to the hallucinations, and his paranoia and egomania reached a crescendo. While the origins might be slightly different, this scenario seemed to recall the scenario in another of Nicholas Ray's film, 'Bigger Than Life’, where the protagonist, played by James Mason, had reached a psychotic status after he has used a novel drug. In Ray's case, he was suggesting that the drug was merely a catalyst that led to the final breakdown, because he was critiquing how the establishment and the conformist attitude has shaped and impacted the male identity. Thus, we cannot blame the drug as the major reason for the psychosis, it only brings out the repressed feelings that are always been in the psyche. Maybe we can agree this is the case with Tetsuo, because he is sort of a beta male in the group, a personality similar to Plato in 'Rebel without a Cause'. Tetsuo's newfound psychic power, much like Plato's aggression with his pistol, would turn the table on the others. The problem was that Tetsuo could not control the power, and the lack of self-control was what made him an unsuccessful, yet sympathetic character in his world. 

With a proper combination of expressionism and realism, Otomo offers the audience an imaginary world which is both fascinating and thrilling. While one can be easily in awe of the imaginations in terms of technology and concepts, he will also be disturbed that this imaginary world is one that can possibly take place in reality, because many of the social, political and biotechnological issues in the film have relevance in our real world. 'Akira' is in no way a pipe dream; it is a cautionary tale we should prevent from becoming a reality. Indeed, while the world in 'Akira' is considered a high-tech one, most of the story takes place in the more depraved areas of the city, or under area of construction (which will then be destroyed regretfully). The apparent bright holographic neon advertisements lights cannot light up the darkness and decadence hidden within the city.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Full Metal Jacket

Are we all fundamentally violent, in a sense we are natural born warriors? Is it ironic to appreciate that our success story on our planet is due to our ability to channel out our aggression, either bringing out our most barbaric moments or turning NBK on others? Do we have the capability to bear the co-existence of good and evil, even when they are locking in an endless struggle in the deepest territories of the psyche? Finally, why is there WAR, to start with, if we have always longed for a peaceful co-existence with each other?!  The brilliant filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick, decided that he would explore all these complex issues in one single masterpiece, which is the topic of a series of articles I will write about in August – Full Metal Jacket (1987)!!

It is great to hear that Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (FMJ hereafter) will receive a re-release in the Film Festival in Hong Kong this month. Based on a short novel ‘The Short Timers’, Kubrick explored the effects of Vietnam War on human psyche, but I have to say there is much more to it. It is noteworthy that the film is very starkly divided into two halves. The first half is about the training of a group of marine recruits in a military camp, and the second half is about these soldiers’ experience in the warzone in Vietnam. For today’s younger audience, FMJ is a film from Kubrick they are more familiar with, and many viewers have likely watched some parts of this film before even if they have no knowledge about Kubrick or his work. Indeed, the first half of the film is probably one of the most iconic and memorable, and, guess what, most entertaining sequences ever from a Kubrick film. The first half of the film has inspired many imitations and parodies in later movies, and I would say many films dealing with similar themes have probably taken inspirations from that too. The success of the first part is very much due to two characters – the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman and an underachiever Leonard Lawrence, most famously known as ‘Gomer Pyle’, a nickname from Hartman. That was the tension between these two iconic characters which drove the narrative of the first half forward, and made this part so memorable. At the second part, some viewers seemed to complain that the narrative became very disjointed and more episodic. To be honest, I would also admit that the second part is less interesting than the more iconic first half, yet I do not agree that the more episodic format of the second half is a short coming. I believe Kubrick adopted this approach because he wanted to contrast that with the first part, as I will elaborate more on the later passages. The more episodic style seemed to signify the random and chaotic nature of war itself, and the apparent aimlessness of the platoon signified the fact that the individualism inherent in any human being could often fit into the main narrative of the war itself – meaning that the soldiers could not quite see or appreciate why they were fighting the war, or they were fighting for, as they were merely instruments for the military industrial complex.

So, FMJ is your typical anti-war flick, right? Well, when I first watched this film in my teenage years, I certainly had this rather shallow point of view. From the dehumanization of military complex to the violence in any war, FMJ did contain a strong anti-war message. Yet the more I think about this film, and the more I understand about psychology, I start to appreciate the complexity of this film. If you have read any of my previous articles about Kubrick’s work, you may expect a statement like ‘Full Metal Jacket is probably the greatest war film in the history of cinema’. Surprise – you will not see this statement here this time. Because if I am really honest and treat FMJ as a hard core war film, it is in no way the best war film ever – films like ‘Apocalypse Now’, ‘The Deer Hunter’, ‘The Thin Red Line’ or even ‘Platoon’ and ‘Saving Private Ryan’ can be considered better war films than FMJ. What makes FMJ special is that it has moved beyond the level of war film – the film is so one-of-a-kind that Kubrick has once again transcended genre categorization.

Let me put it this way. Full Metal Jacket is not merely a war film, that is a film which uses the issue of war as a vehicle to explore fundamental questions about humanity. Indeed, many colleagues close to Kubrick has stated that the motivation behind making FMJ is actually a psychological one – because Kubrick was fascinated with Carl G. Jung’s ideas on psychology, and he wanted to express the idea of ‘The Shadow’ in cinema. Someone, he could see a connection between the Vietnam War and the Jung’s famous ideas – the Duality of Man – and therefore he used the Vietnam War as a topic to express the contradictory dualism inherent in all of us. It is worth comparing FMJ with a film Kubrick made 30 years before that – ‘Paths of Glory’ (1957). In Paths of Glory, Kubrick has made absolutely no confusion about the point he was trying to make – war of any kind and scale is ugly, and it wrecks lives of others. The point of view presented in ‘Paths of Glory’ was very clear, and indeed it was quite a sentimental film which was very different from Kubrick’s usual approach. When we look at Full Metal Jacket, the view point has become far more ambiguous, because Kubrick wants us to consider different perspectives regarding war and the underlying psychology behind that. Kubrick’s approach has matured throughout the 30 years, and what he has been aiming for the last 35 years of his life (since Dr. Strangelove) was an engagement with his audience to discover self-knowledge. Of course, self-knowledge not only entailed the great side of humanity but also his dark and uncharted seas. It is not fair to say that as a pessimism to expose the more painful and ugly moments of humanity, just the opposite, that is how our thinking can evolve and we have a better understanding of ourselves. Thus, I would compare FMJ to Kubrick’s first ever feature film, ‘Fear and Desire’ (1953), as that film was also intensely psychological and used war as a background to explore existential ideas and human personality.

In a nutshell, I guess the question wants us to explore is this – if war is so bad and destructive, given humanity’s intelligence, why is this very idea not replaced? If humanity possesses the intelligence to develop weapons that can target enemy more efficiently and selectively, and can conceive destruction in a far more massive scale, why is this dark side of human nature not wiped out? Throughout history, the story of warriors and conquerors have been celebrated, and they are often hailed as heroes or visionaries, while they certainly did this at the cost of others, no matter what kind of rhetoric they could come up with to justify their actions (that ‘Oh, we are trying to help you because you are less civilized than us’ sort of b.s.). Kubrick was confronting us with this paradox that many of us would find that tremendously challenging to come to terms with. If we are moral and taking a more liberal stance on this issue, and affirming the idea of peace, of course, then why we allow this very destructive activity to continue throughout centuries? In Kubrick’s point of view, the reason is because war is a manifestation of our true nature – our need for violence and aggression. That is nothing wrong or crazy about that, because that is our fundamental nature, just like any animals. What makes humanity different from the other animals is we can instill culture to strive a better balance from our darker attributes. What is more chilling, however, is that how humanity develops the idea of institution to normalize many behaviors that can in no way considered rational. Hence, we have the idea of ‘institutionalized violence’ and war is probably the most exemplary candidate of institutionalized violence.

Indeed, the first part of Full Metal Jacket shows us why the training of new recruits into soldiers are so effective. Because not only the dehumanizing effect has a great impact on the mind of the recruiters, what is often overlooked is that our psychological design is also helping us to transform to become an instrument for the institution. Indeed, it is spectacular and even chilling to see how great the military complex is playing with psychology of the recruiters to achieve a purpose they want – to turn these young and immature teenagers to become efficient killers in combat. The drill instructors are smart in the sense that they can use different tactics to play with the weakness of the recruiters, to influence them to have a self-motivation and drive to transform themselves, to born again hard as mentioned multiple times in the film. When we think about FMJ, there is no point to pass simplistic moral judgement on the film, like saying the drill instructor is a bad guy or so, because that will miss the point Kubrick was trying to make. Every incident, or indeed every character, can be viewed in many different and contradictory angles, and that is why Jung’s idea about the duality of humanity is so essential to the film – humanity is not that black and white, and we often embrace our own shadow if we want to understand ourselves.

In the next article, I will lead you through the first part of the film, about the military training in the camp. Kubrick has taken a clinical approach in this sequence, as he wanted us to serve as observers to this situation, as if we are looking at the action of an assembly line in a factory. The approach we will adopt is going to be very psychological, as I will show how the drill instruction plays with psychological ideas of archetypes, group psychology, intimidation, and the cultural ideas like heterosexuality and masculinity, to build up the military machine of soldiers. Though the sequence has loads of black humor – I am sure anyone will laugh at certain moments – I feel that it is probably one of the most chilling moments in all of Kubrick’s cinema. What makes that so disturbing is the mechanical dehumanization of the sequence makes so much sense to anyone, as this is something not only taking place in the army, but also in any disciplinary institutions. This cold rationalism, developed and perfected by humanity, will certainly send shivers down anyone’s spine - because it just works so well.

(To be continued.)

1/3

by Ed Law

Film Analysis