BATTLE: LOS ANGELES: A War on the Nervous System

The act of watching BATTLE: LOS ANGELES is a nauseating experience. At times, it is aggressively nauseating. According to Director Jonathan Liebesman’s BIO, he studied filmmaking at NYU and the AFDA, but minutes into the film, it becomes abundantly clear that he must have graduated with honors from the School of ADHD. Hyperactive, with the inability to focus and like the neurobehavioral developmental disorder of the same name, it is a chronic disturbance that impairs the film and seems likely an irreversible trend to continue in contemporary filmmaking (as it does in reality TV programming). Lukas Ettlin’s camera-in-a-blender cinematography lacks a purpose and seems like it is constantly trying to find something on which to focus - - and I DARE him or the filmmakers to publically produce a working shot list.

Coupled with the advent of the Avid and other non-linear digital-editing technologies, B-roll and camera coverage has put a strangle-hold on the one-take style of filmmaking that easily translates to a filmmaker having no faith in his or her material. It seems ironic that Ettlin, a native of Switzerland that has a world-renowned position on neutrality, was chosen to lens such a film about extraterrestrial beings obliterating the major cities of Earth in order to harvest its water supply. This irresolute shooting style even continues in the newsreel footage that the characters watch on their respective television sets which include quick zooms and pans amid incomprehensible close-up shots and never for once seems to utilize one of the most sacred devices in a DP’s toolkit: a tripod. In the filmmakers’ defense, all of the Tripods were decimated in Steven Spielberg’s WAR OF THE WORLDS. The film’s ‘You Are There’ experience in which it pits you seems as if it’s nothing more than a recruitment video for the United States Marine Corps, which like Paul Verhoeven’s STARSHIP TROOPERS, is a sci-fi film of war with deceptive overtones of propaganda. 116 minutes later, the only place in which I wanted to enlist was my local drugstore for a Tylenol. Thankfully, however, my immunity for such cinematic trivialities is as impenetrable as a bulletproof vest.

Likely confusing is the film’s moniker - - BATTLE: LOS ANGELES - - when the film takes place primarily in Santa Monica, CA. It’s not until the last shot of the film that military choppers actually make a beeline toward downtown Los Angeles proper! Technically, it should’ve been dubbed BATTLE: WESTERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, but I’m sure it wouldn’t have satisfied focus groups and didn’t seem cool enough a title. More appropriate a title would’ve been simply BATTLE: LA since 90% of it was shot in Shreveport and Baton Rouge, LA. Luckily for Lieutenant Corporal Peter Kerns (Jim Parrack) who is also a featured character in HBO’s “True Blood” in (fictional) Bon Temps, LA, he didn’t have to travel very far - - physically and in acting chops - - from his likeably, simple-minded and good-hearted persona of Hoyt Fortenberry. Kerns, like Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) and Technical Sergeant Elena Santos (Michelle Rodriguez) should each be praised for their ability to stand out from all of the visual clutter in which they’re immersed and be somewhat ingratiating.

Regarding the rules of contemporary film-viewing, even if we do see Nantz perform two, successively rapid sit-ups and push-ups (in extreme close-up), after an appropriate suspension of disbelief, we’re to believe he actually did achieve twenty or more reps (or else, once again, an actor was saved through the magic of editing). With his chiseled features and positive work ethic, I do believe he accomplished a hearty workout regimen. And after witnessing the cast in their various lines of duty, although her spoken dialogue is as wooden as a mighty Oak, I’d rather be shadowing Sergeant Santos for her skilled directness and attention-to-detail in the field of battle. Her fellow soldiers (and the filmmakers) unfortunately take their cues from their successful and more highly ranked predecessors (in order of plagiarism): ALIENS, CLOVERFIELD, INDEPENDENCE DAY, DISTRICT 9, WAR OF THE WORLDS (all versions), STARSHIP TROOPERS and PREDATOR in terms of:

• inter-group rapport with intensely-used and repetitive military slang;
• over-the-shoulder documentation of the unfolding events in a war-torn landscape;
• alien beings that are both lanky, lean and often hybridized with artillery capable of firing various types (at varying speeds) of ammo;
• engagement in ground-to-air and air-to-air (dogfight) combat involving drone-like vehicles and force fields on enemy warship(s) and corresponding craft;
• inspecting the multi-layered innards of alien beings in order to understand its compositional makeup;
• discovering a nemeses’ Achilles heel and sharing the vulnerability with others still alive in the human network in order to ‘spread the word’ and ‘take them down’.

"Hey, Bra, don'tcha think we should pack it in?"

(To evacuate the Pacific Ocean/Gulf of Mexico or not to evacuate?)

In these instances, BATTLE: LOS ANGELES is neither vital entertainment nor a relaxing one to enjoy. Why do filmmakers insist on crafting films that are not only a chore to watch, but as detrimental to one’s optical nerves as they are on one’s nervous system? Contrasted with the film that popularized the trend in hand-held cinematography, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was like staring at a slightly skewed picture postcard in which its imagery did not seem randomized and was an enjoyable experience in horror. Having seen both a leaked version of the film phenomenon online and in the theatre, I much preferred the grainy and degraded online version that enhanced the contextual horror of not being able to comfortably see or anticipate what (unseen) demons lurked in the characters’ midst. In its blend of color and black and white sequences, the camera that each character holds, is like a virtual extension of one’s eye - - it doesn’t zoom in and zoom out whilst panning simultaneously to upset the viewer’s equilibrium like in Liebesman’s film. One thing I learned from the CITIZEN KANE school of filmmaking is that where there is a lack of depth of field, there is assuredly a lack of depth (of ideas and imagination).

Why all this zoom in, zoom out, pan right, pan even more right poppycock in scenes such as in the flower shop when a soldier is selecting flowers for his nuptials; or when the soldiers are celebrating on a midnight beer-binge or even when a mortally wounded civilian is lying on the floor of a convenience store as he sits on death’s door step? You’d think that more compassion would be paid to a character in a sequence that absolutely requires it - - sure, just keep whipping that camera lens around to induce a headache more so than tears. Not even the potential elements paying homage to Howard Hawks’ RIO BRAVO where Nantz and his marines hole themselves up with a batch of civilians in the Santa Monica Police Department against the invading alien marauders or John Ford’s STAGECOACH when the soldiers navigate their steel wagon commuter bus through an enemy alien warpath can save a film that is already fubar.

Corpsman Jibril Adukwu (Adetokumboh M'Cormack) remarks, “I’d rather be in Afghanistan”. That’s the spirit, brother! (Sarcasm.) What’s tragic about a film in the current military climate where unrest often (and as of this review, currently) resides in nations around the globe, the last thing you want to hear crossing a soldier’s lips is a disregard for the military duty for which he signed up and shirk his responsibilities - - especially when the alien nemeses they’re facing aren’t terribly menacing. They don’t bleed or expel acid. They don’t control humans with their minds. In fact, the film purports that they are just as organic and have a penchant for body armor as do their human targets.

And with all the firepower and military training at their disposal, even ‘Newt’ (Carrie Henn) in James Cameron’s ALIENS showed more cojones than were exhibited by those in Nantz’s platoon - - in addition to using the Almighty’s name in vain during moments of high tension nearly three dozen times and engaging in personal politics with a superior officer that is not only worthy of being court-martialed, but disrespectful to one’s elders. If I may be so bold and act as my own appointed court martial, I find the defendant, BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, for all of the aforementioned, GUILTY and sentenced directly-to-video, followed by the obligatory video game tie-ins and unnecessary sequels to further numb the minds of gamers and promote a harvest of new, unsuspecting recruits to War.

Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?

Prince Feisal: It is written.

T.E. Lawrence: Nothing is written.

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, Dir. David Lean

From the onset of George Nolfi’s THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, an adapted rendering of Philip K. Dick’s 1954 sci-fi short story, “Adjustment Team”, youthful U.S. Senate hopeful, David Norris (Matt Damon) is occupying his own space in a dimly-lit hallway preparing a speech he will give to a massive crowd of onlookers seen visibly awaiting his entrance beyond a framed glass doorway. Moments later, the door (literally and figuratively) opens to the promising political future of Senator Norris inviting him to make his way down the path toward the podium where he will greet his attendants - - the theme of traveling through doors and following one’s path is popularized in the film’s second act. A rapid montage ensues consisting of energized speeches on behalf of the candidate, baby-kissing that seems commonplace for contemporary politicians, television appearances on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” (because historically, interviews with pundits in today’s media culture as opposed to television journalists excite movie audiences aged 15-34) and networking with a considerable amount of New York City’s registered voters. This positive momentum in Norris’ race is followed shortly thereafter by the predictable career-crusher: a lewd photo leaked to a print news source of David pulling a college prank which is destined to hurt his candidacy and securing his senatorial seat.

“Adjustment Team” featured herein

Moments like these in film are hopeful reminders that print news may still be a viable source of investigative journalism instead of downloading deadlines through one’s mobile smartphone device. Furthering this notion of a breakdown in modern technology is the consistency with which many of the principal actor’s cellular phones either don’t work (however, they regularly send/accept text messages) or don’t afford one enough adequate reception to place or field a phone call. What is the reason for this techno-breakdown? It’s not necessarily implied by the filmmakers so it may be that Art imitates Life and is the result of a crowded cellular network or not enough towers to boost signals - - who really knows? Chances are that the disruption on the physical plane of Norris’ New York may be due to a bureau of adjustment technicians, sophisticatedly dressed (with sharp double-breasted suits, designer coats, ties and hats) harbingers of Fate employed by a “Chairman” to confirm that the lives of nearly all humans on Earth, most specifically David, move according to a predetermined plan. This doesn’t sit well with David whose crestfallen political future is replaced with falling in love with a talented ballet dancer, Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt). In typical Phildickian fashion (BLADE RUNNER, TOTAL RECALL, MINORITY REPORT, PAYCHECK, NEXT), David, who is imbued with prized importance in his future will attempt to outrun these agents of destiny to (re-)connect with the woman of his dreams. Thankfully, he has a few tricks up his Brooks Brothers’ sleeves and can count on the employment of chance which can typically unfold in opposition to the Adjusters’ tactics of ‘sticking to The Plan’.

‘The Plan’ takes the shape of a wonderfully-realized notebook whose ‘digitally’ printed entries and ‘tracks’ move in tandem to a subject’s motion during the events that occur in his life. One might relate its pages to a pair of vertically-affixed iPad devices with GPS technology capable of harnessing anyone’s daily movements with an unlimited battery life enclosed inside of a leather-bound jacket. If only the inspiration for the pages motion was half as exciting as what appears in the notebook - - unfortunately, the storyline of the lovers’ relationship falls short of awe-inspiring; only the path in which they take to (re-)unite with each other is exciting. In the realm of ‘political chase’ films, the presidential/senatorial grooming of Chance (Peter Sellers) in Hal Ashby’s BEING THERE and Jay Billington Bulworth (Warren Beatty, BULWORTH) are far more entertaining depictions of Politician vs. The System, whether they’re fortuitously gaining popularity ‘by chance’ or evading gunfire by an unknown assassin while simultaneously leading in the polls. It’s also not terribly convincing that in Nolfi’s film, Blunt’s Elise will be crowned the nation’s best modern dancer and quite frankly, the chemistry between Norris and Sellas is rather flat and like many contemporary filmed romances, can’t hold a candle to such onscreen flirtation as was exhibited between Roger O. Thornhill (Cary Grant) and Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) in Hitchcock’s thriller of the political chase brand in NORTH BY NORTHWEST.

Chance (Peter Sellers) resembles 'Fate' / an adjustment technician

Norris is literally engaged in a ‘race’ (physically and politically) as he tries to thwart and/or elude the agents of adjustment while continuing to make a living for himself. (It seems Damon’s Norris has been in training for this film throughout his efforts in the Bourne enterprise.) Initially, the agents are tasked with trying to keep Norris and Sellas from coming into contact with each other and manage to successfully do so for three years - - during which time Norris readies himself for his second swing at the senatorial seat. But after carefully researching David’s file and clarification from “the Chairman”, it is revealed that Norris and Sellas are meant to be together. (Perhaps this element is in homage to Powell and Pressburger’s fantasy classic, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH about an aviator who goes on trial for his life after finding true love when he was instead supposed to die in a plane crash.) Enter into the chase, Thompson (Terence Stamp) a.k.a. “The Hammer”, a first-class Adjuster in his field and a type of rogue agent (of mal-adjustment?), who advises David that love between two individuals can only damage their respective ambitions; in this case, Sellas’ drive to become the country’s greatest living dancer and Norris’ rise to political stardom and becoming President of the United States. Therein lies the course of the film’s protagonists which progresses through ‘The Plan’ notebook from left to right (not necessarily from Point A to Point B) while the adjustment antagonists litter the playing field with physical challenges, downed phone lines and numerous stalling tactics.

Scattered throughout New York City’s landscape are doorways which take on a special significance of inter-city travel and the key to accessing each portal is the hat each adjuster dons in their attired arsenal. Feeling sympathetic to Norris’ case, adjuster Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie) supplies David with a schematic of the doorway system and the use of his hat to travel through the cities’ wormholes. A bond of friendship grows between the two and more secrets of the adjustment’s firm are revealed to Norris: that rain and large bodies of water can affect their judgment and that they’re not necessarily angels, although they’ve been called that term by others, like David, in the past. In fact, there’s actually too much exposition that is relayed to David which in my opinion proves that the characters have no faith in the material they’re presenting; to repeatedly prove that something we know does not exist truly does exist eventually breaks one’s suspension of disbelief. Another criticism that must be made is against the film’s score and that it bears an uncanny similarity to the film’s composer, Thomas Newman’s other musical composition for Mike Nichols’ epic mini-series ANGELS IN AMERICA (harmoniously beautiful, however, a deceptive imitation) which also takes place in New York City and involves angel-like constructs - - coincidence?

Watching THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, another allusion became clear to me, most particularly with Howard Hawks’ THE BIG SLEEP (the 1946 theatrical release) as the act of passing through doors in the former film reminded me of the characters’ execution of opening/closing doors in the latter. This may require further analysis with other feature films (not including Pete Docter’s/PIXAR’s MONSTER’S, INC., where its animated monsters travel from Monstropolis to the human world through the assistance of innumerable closet doors), but Hawks’ film may hold a record of entering through doors which I’ve tallied at 75 which doesn’t include entering/leaving through car doors (30), entering through a window (1), through A.G. Geiger’s beaded curtain (5) and passing through Joe Brody’s draped curtain (2). Sure, it may also be a big stretch that Philip K. Dick shares the namesake of the protagonist in THE BIG SLEEP (Philip Marlowe), but the attire shared between the adjustment technicians and much of the male cast in Marlowe’s orbit are similar in style and sophistication (save for the post-modern Bureau staff members who slightly resemble the appearance and stride of the Chrome Robot officers in George Lucas’ THX 1138). Marlowe and Norris respectively find themselves in the Public Library (Hollywood / New York), not only an institution for study, investigation and the pursuit of knowledge, but the New York Public Library acts as the foundation of the Adjustment Bureau’s headquarters where its countless files on nearly every human life mirrors that of the books that fill each shelf and cubbyhole in the library’s collection.

Much like a book in a lending library, I would recommend checking out THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU for its imaginative tugging at the veil of reality and peeking behind its fabric to witness an author’s perspective of how things work. In a way, the idea of sharing in this voyeuristic series of moments is rather subversive - - I just wish it would’ve been carried out even further with less narrative exposition. And I can admit to being affected by the film’s sinister charm in that I may think twice about the next person I meet who’s wearing a hat or any other type of headgear.