The Current War Review

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a prescreening of the movie The Current War. I can’t lie. I kind of feel special. My wife was sponsoring the event for her work, and I’ve never been to a pre-screening before. This happened to be a movie I wanted to watch. But honestly, anyone could have gone. You’d just have to look up AARP’s Movies for Grown Ups and sign up online. Regardless, I’m going to pretend I’m someone, and leave a review for it the before the masses get to see it.

Directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, The Current War delves into the race to power America. Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse, with a sprinkling in of Nikola Tesla, fight for the best method to create electricity. A while back, I watched a documentary about the alternating current (AC) vs direct current (DC) debate. As I watched the movie, I had a mental check list of all the key events I remember seeing from the documentary. To my delight, every one of the milestones was portrayed in the movie. Perhaps because of my interest in the history of the race, I found the movie even more enjoyable. But is it a good movie? Is it worth spending the money to see? Using Aristotle’s six elements of drama, I’ll break it down.

Plot. The most important question I ask concerning plot, “Does it pull me in?” There is no real science to this question, but in this case, the answer is simple, “Yes.” I was never bored watching this movie. Does this mean the plot is perfect? No. There are certain plot points of this movie I’d have wished they dug into more deeply. There are other elements, that could have been shorter. Plus, I like surprises. Unfortunately, since I already know the history of the events, I knew who was going to win. My most noticeable problem with the plot concerns the ending. Not that it is bad, it was just sudden. The movie finished with end credit subtitles that simply told the audience the rest of the history. It may have been nice for some of those story beats to have been shown. 

Character. This is the strongest element of the movie. The characters are flawed, yet human. I loved how Gomez-Rejon sets up early what drives both Edison and Westinghouse. He illustrates each has a strong moral Crux. As the battle between Edison and Westinghouse intensifies, each has his highest value tested. In addition, Benedict Cumberbatch (Edison) and Michael Shannon (Westinghouse) add depth and humanity to their roles. Now Nicholas Hoult is great as Nikola Tesla, but the movie could have used more of him. He is thrown in and out of scenes as needed, without a natural transition. Tom Holland was good in the movie, but he didn’t feel believable. He is too boyish for the part. (My wife even commented that she will only see him as Spiderman--Spider Man and Dr. Strange reunited.) If Holland was only playing Edison’s assistant, I may have not mentioned his performance, but later in the movie he is given a role by a board of big wigs. I do not believe the shareholders of a major company would have offered Holland’s portrayal such a position. 

Diction. I think here’s where the movie has the most problems. These are mostly minor nitpicks (I do need something to write about). First, some of the camera angles and transitions are awkward and jarring. I usually don’t notice the cinematography elements of a movie, but I did pick up on these. Curious to see if it was just me, I checked out some other reviews (only to verify my opinion), and sure enough other critics have commented on the very same thing. A couple critics suggested that the camera shifts were meant to represent the chaos of alternating current. I didn’t get that. Now, this kind of thing doesn’t bother me, but for some, it may be an issue. Yet, the movie does have some great moments of camera work. The light bulb scenes lighting up the night sky are awe-inspiring. And, Gomez-Rejon adds a mood invoking old movie slide show transition to glance over a darker place in the story. 

Music. First, the score is good. One of the pieces incorporates the drama of an old orchestra but adds electrical hues to create them right mood. The tone is spot on. Concerning pacing, a lot of the elements coincide with my issues with the plot. Some scenes transition to fast, while other hold their breath just a hint to long. Nothing, horrid, just noticeable. 

Theme. Without spoiling anything, I love the way both Edison and Westinghouse wrestle with each of their individual cruxes as the competition grows more heated. I can identify. The themes in the movie are universal, and not controversial, so audiences are not likely to be turned off by the questions the movie is asking. Nor are the themes subtle. Thus, some may say the movie lacks depth, but hooey on them. However, the themes are nuanced. They don’t yell at viewers and say, “This is how you are supposed to see things!” The themes simply ask questions. 

Spectacle. No one expects a historical biopic to emphasize spectacle, but this movie does have some nice effects, particularly the beautiful displays of old timey lightbulbs. My guess is these effects were CGI, but I couldn’t tell. 

All-in-all, I really enjoyed The Current War. But would I have spent nine bucks to watch it? Not a fair question to ask me, because I rarely go to the movies. It’s not a movie I would have rushed to go out to see, but I was wanting to watch it at some point. So, if I were at the right place, at the right time, and I had spent money to watch it, I would not have regretted my decision.

Raiders of the Lost Arc (Pun Intended)

One great criticism people have with Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark is that they say Indiana Jones’ accomplishments do not do anything to influence the plot. As in everything would have happened exactly the same if Jones had done nothing. An episode of The Big Bang Theory explored this. After Sheldon showed his girlfriend, Amy, the movie for the first time, he challenged her to find a flaw with the movie. She told Sheldon that very same criticism--Indy did nothing to change the actual outcome of the movie. Thus, Sheldon told it to all his friends. And they were bummed thinking their perfect movie was destroyed. Thus, they kept trying to find some sort of way to explain this “Fault”.

I want to call bologna on that. Bologna that this “Plot hole” is even a fault. So what… I say. So what if he doesn’t affect the outcome? I know everybody in the literary circles talks about having active characters, or characters that influence the story. But, sometimes that's not life. Sometimes we don’t influence the large scale controversies in life. I get it. So often we want to sit there and think, “Why does it matter if I do anything, if it what I do doesn't get any results? If what I do doesn't change anything?”

And that's where I'm afraid of where we so often tie our meaning. Results. “Actions only matter if they get results!” So often we tie the meaning of our actions into getting the results we want, or having our actions somehow make sort of difference in the world, or some sort of legacy. How many people go through life just living in despair, because their actions make no impact? Or don’t ultimately change anything?

Yes, everything in Raiders of the Lost Ark would have turned out exactly the way it did if Indiana Jones had done nothing. The ark would have fallen into the Nazi hands. It would have killed those who opened it… (In fact, I heard one argument that suggested if Indiana Jones hadn’t tried so hard to get the ark, it would have flown directly to Hilter… Thus, it would have killed the dictator right off, as opposed to a few lesser schmoes. But to those people I would say, “It’s a movie, ya’ll!!)

Regardless, I want to shift my ramblings to an actual point. Jone’s arc… not ark. Perhaps Jones’ relationship with Marion was the more important thing. Or his evolution as a person? Is how Jones changed the story as important as how the story changed Jones? In the face of evil, are we supposed to do nothing, when our actions cannot possibly affect any outcome?

No.

We are still morally obligated to take action. Regardless of the results...regardless of whether we get results. Sometimes it's not how the actions lead results, but how our actions change us. How did Jones actions, change him? In fiction, how a character evolves is called a character Arc. Jones’ ark was his arc.

All this think of Raiders, reminds me of a quote by CS Lewis concerning prayer. “I pray because I'm helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time, waking and sleeping. It doesn't change God. It changes me.” I think that is really the crux of what Lucas and Spielberg were hinting at in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Sure, it ends in a deus ex machina (God out of the machine), or in the movie’s case “God out of the box”. But that’s the point, it's not how our actions have to get results. But how our actions change us.

Ultimately, a changed world is irrelevant if there is no changed hearts.

The Risk of Humor

When I think of all the dumbest things I have ever said, a great majority came from me trying to be funny. With all the comedians out there, it seems like they keep saying worse and worse things. Why is that? Another question I would pose, why do people base jump? Why do people skydive? Why do people bungee jump?

Often times, trying to be funny involves risk, whether being embarrassed or being offensive. Yet, I feel the rush of a great joke when it lands. Now, I'm particularly a fan of dad jokes, but sometimes they get tiring. Their reactions are rarely memorable. And they usually only work once (my wife cringes every time I repeat one of my go to jokes to a new person). In fact, most jokes usually only work once. So, in order to get the rush again, funny people try to push new boundaries. Just like a skydiver wants to try to get closer and closer to the ground before he opens a parachute.

Declare vs question

I prefer orchestral music to band music. More specifically, I am more moved by woodwind and string instruments than brass and percussion. Likely this is why I am drawn to Mozart in particular. He did not use a lot of brass or percussion. It may have not helped that his father blasted a trumpet at him to scare him into performing better. So, why am I drawn to the wind and string sections? I think it’s the way they approach emotional exploration. 

String and winds question. As they explore various emotional experiences, these two groups simply ask questions. A somber song moves in such a manner saying, “Why am I sad? Should I really be sad? What events caused such sorrow?” The same goes for the emotions of joy and anger. Or, if there is a problem that needs to be tackled, the music questions understanding. In addition, an orchestra is more subtle with its emotions. 

Goal-Oriented Outgoing vs. Organic Outgoing

Both my wife and I are generally outgoing individuals (although I've had a tendency to be less so lately). When I say outgoing, neither of us are afraid to introduce ourselves to others and strike up a conversation. Yet, although we are both outgoing, the way we go about our conversations is a lot different. She is what I would call a goal-oriented outgoing person. I'm what you could call a organic outgoing person. The other day, I met a person who was more of an introvert, and started pondering the different approaches the two types of personalities have as they speak. Both have some advantages and disadvantages. I'm sure there's some Briggs-Myers personality types that also explain this, but I'm going to throw out my own observation.

Cell Phone Fraud

Those commercials for fraud pop up from time-to-time. I never thought much of them. “It couldn’t happen to me.” I thought. Yet… Well. I think you know where this story is going. A few days ago $4500 worth of phones were sent to our house. They came from Verizon. We have not had a Verizon account in nearly 2 years. Shortly after the phones arrived, my wife received a call from a man who said his name was Jason Hanes claiming to be from the Verizon Verification Department. He told us that Verizon accidentally sent us phones and that we needed to send them back. A FedEx delivery driver was en-route to our house. In order to add urgency, he stressed that we would face legal action if we did not send the phones back.

Of course, the whole lot smelled rotten. We did not send the phones back with the FedEx delivery driver. Instead, we called Verizon’s fraud department directly. We learned the thieves set up an account in my name, using my SSN. Yuck. They knew our numbers and our old Verizon information. Verizon told us we needed to go to a certified store to send the phones back, and then file a fraud claim. Fun stuff.

Mary Sue and the Crystal Skull: Part Three

For the last two posts, I dove into the literary term Mary Sue: a seemingly perfect character who can perform tasks beyond the character’s experience or ability. I also mentioned two reasons why writers create a Mary Sue. One, wish fulfillment. Two, fear of making a certain type of character look bad. Jumping on the second reason, I said that Indiana Jones from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a Mary Sue, or the male equivalent, Gary Stu, because Lucas and Spielberg didn’t dare tarnish the Indiana Jones legacy. Last week, I addressed how the movie set up a character who had his world under control. Now, we venture on to my final points: Jones versus the big baddy mono e mono. 

To gain full background, let’s explore the first three movies where Jones faces this ultimate, big bad threat. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is the muscle bulging Nazi with a shaved head. He looks a lot like me. Breaking down that fight, how well did Jones fair? There are gobs of back and forth punches. Many of Jones’ first blows have little effect on the giant. As they fight, Marion jumps into a fighter plane, in order that she might shoot an advancing truck of Nazi soldiers. As Indy fights, he struggles to grab his gun, the plane circles, Marion is locked in, and a looming threat of fire beckons death. 

Mary Sue and the Crystal Skull: Part Two

Last post, I introduced the literary term Mary Sue: a seemingly perfect character who can perform tasks beyond the character’s experience or ability. I also mentioned two reason why writers create a Mary Sue. One, wish fulfillment. Two, fear of making a certain type of character look bad. Jumping on the second reason, I said that Indiana Jones from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a Mary Sue, or the male equivalent, Gary Stu. I stressed that the reason Lucas and Spielberg turned Indiana Jones into such a character was that they wanted to overcome Harrison Ford’s limitations. I compared the opening of Crystal Skull with the other three movies. Thus, I will continue where I left off.

Mary Sue and the Crystal Skull: Part One

A literary term has been floating around lately… Mary Sue. Some grumble about it’s use. They say it is derogatory. A term meant to belittle characters. A term that is misogynistic--although it was created by a women. So what is a Mary Sue? It is a seemingly perfect character who can perform tasks beyond one’s experience or ability. Why are Mary Sues created? At times, a creator wants to shed a super positive likeness of unto a character, usually to because this character matches what he or she wishes to be.

But, I also think there is another reason writers create a Mary Sue, because they are afraid that if they add flaws to particular characters, some people may denounce such portrayals. “What? You don’t think so-and-so can do such-and-such?!” Thus, at times, female characters both receive the Mary Sue doctoring treatment, and the brunt of the Mary Sue criticism (even when the character is not a Mary Sue). I am not ready to go into that dark cave of analysis.

Yet, there are still clearly gobs of male Mary Sues--or as some people call them, Gary Stus. One such specimen is Indiana Jones in the movie Kingdom of The Crystal Skull. The movie did not bode well with a lot of Indiana Jones fans (I still like it, but it is not the same), while there are gobs of reasons, him being a Mary Sue was a contributing factor. Indiana Jones did not feel right in the movie, because he did not feel like Indiana Jones.