Top Gun: Maverick

                      

"Today I am a pud" reads the first line of Lester Bangs' review of James Taylor's One Man Dog from 1973 and I am in a similar critical position today vis a vis Top Gun: Maverick. 🌓 Bangs had already excoriated Taylor and his work in his famous essay "James Taylor Marked for Death", but was man enough to praise JT, a teeny bit, for exhibiting signs of artistic growth. Similarly, I regard the original Top Gun as odious, but will admit the new model is an improvement.

Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer, the producers of Top Gun, were responsible for a number of highly successful films in the 80s and 90s that were monuments to impersonal filmmaking, full of flash and choreographed action, but devoid of nuance and feeling. Joseph Kosinski, like Tony Scott before him, has been hired by the producers (and Simpson is still listed as a producer even though he died in 1996) for his technical skill more than his artistic elan. The producers have been amply rewarded as Top Gun: Maverick is, by far, the commercial success of the year. 

The film is well cast and constructed. The young cast members are all appealing, Jennifer Connelly is an improvement over Kelly McGillis and Val Kilmer is given a moving cameo. However, I felt the film was as anonymous as the enemy Cruise and his cohorts were fighting. I also thought the film would have been more moving if Cruise had been killed off at the end. However, Hollywood seems extremely reluctant to kill any Tom Cruise character. I think he dies in Taps, but that was before he was a lead. Otherwise, he has been indestructible. So, Top Gun: Maverick is a bloodless war film, with only faceless baddies meeting their fate. Since the film seems to endorse destroying Iran's nuclear capability, I find this morally questionable. Freedom isn't free and the next time we tangle with Iran, men and women will die. 

🌓 Lester Bangs, Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, pg. 114

No comments:

Post a Comment