We have historical novels in the field of literature. They can take
license in the handling of facts. "Artistic license" ensures there's a
captivating story line and interesting characters. The fundamental facts
are left intact. A story that strives to follow history literally can
be interesting too. As they say, "truth is stranger than fiction" (or
can be).
The movie "Amelia" strives to be true to history. The 2009 release reminds us that "aviatrix" is a term.
I'm not sure the movie was necessary. At least, not in the way it
was made. The movie could have told us more about what was happening in
the 1930s, not just in America but the world. Amelia Earhart died in
1937 as the world was hurtling toward war. That's bad enough but keep in
mind America had its own calamity to deal with, that being our
teetering economy. It was of course the decade of the Great Depression.
David Stockman is telling us we could be hurtling toward the same
crisis today. He's out with a book called "The Great Deformation." We'll
see.
In the 1930s we had the "America First" movement which asserted
we'd be just fine if we kept our distance from the world's problems.
Aviator Charles Lindbergh was very high-profile with the "Firsters."
American history has learned to soft-pedal the Firsters and the
sentiment they represented. It seems laudable, really, wanting to avoid
conflict. But Japan poured gasoline on things. Finally we were in World
War II with both feet.
Amelia Earhart's prime was when issues of gravity were felt around
the globe. The Japan-China War started in July of 1937. The movie
"Amelia" might have been illuminating in many ways. Instead it rather
obsesses on the individual Amelia Earhart with an actress who I guess
was supposed to fascinate us with her physical resemblance. The novelty
of that was exhausted after a few minutes. I could never look at Hilary
Swank without seeing Hilary Swank - know what I mean? I wanted to
see Amelia Earhart. I guess this means I had a hard time suspending
reality. It just seemed like a formulaic biopic.
Earhart is of course famous for having vanished at the end. Thus we
have the endless speculation, conspiracy theories etc. Watching a movie
about Earhart is exactly like watching any of the Titanic or King Kong
movies. Critics needn't worry about plot spoilers. Everyone knows the
profound tragedy that is felt at the end. Thus there are limits for how
much we can enjoy such a movie.
The biopic about bandleader Glenn Miller - remember Harry Morgan as
the pianist? - avoided much of the pain at the conclusion. That's
because we saw Miller's plane at takeoff only. He shoots a wave out the
window, smiling. We know the rest of the story. We don't see it. (CW
today suggests it was friendly fire: an abortive bombing raid.)
With "Amelia" we're dragged through the extended time as the
aviatrix and her floundering "navigator," an alcoholic, soar over
the Pacific Ocean, no destination in sight. We know there's no hope for
them. We're forced to visualize the grim facts of their end.
The movie could have ended at takeoff, not just for this leg of the
flight but the whole thing, when optimism and joy were high, never mind
there was a reckless element that actually was present in much of
Earhart's flying.
The end of the movie could have been a collection of scenes showing
how adventurous and pioneering her life was. It was a time when women
didn't have a lot of latitude. Society had narrow parameters. Major
league baseball was still all-white. World War II would showcase the
Tuskegee Airmen. Alas, the movie "Red Tails" didn't get much better
reviews than "Amelia."
Roger Ebert's review of "Amelia" was actually more favorable than
most. Ebert died just days ago. His review of "Amelia" reminds us that
the aviatrix was the first person after Lindbergh to fly solo over the
Atlantic Ocean. He felt the "period detail" was good. He reminds us that
Earhart didn't carry the kind of baggage that "Lucky Lindy" did, as the
male hero was "chummy with the Nazis." Yes, this was in the time
leading up to the war.
Ebert reminds us that the major biopic about Lindbergh, made in
1957 and starring Jimmy Stewart, was flawed. This movie was "The Spirit
of St. Louis." Frankly I couldn't buy Stewart as Lindbergh. The movie
focused too much on the long flight when it could have revealed more
about "Lindy" the man, Ebert felt.
Filmmakers might have had a problem with Earhart in that her life
was "generally happy," according to ol' Roger. Thus there is a "lack of
drama." Her final flight might be seen as dripping with drama except for
one thing: We all know how it turns out. Earhart was attempting a
circumnavigational flight. She was aboard her Lockheed Model 10 Elektra.
She and her navigator Fred Noonan disappeared over the central Pacific
near Howland Island.
I was fascinated to learn (through Wikipedia, not the movie) that her mother, Amelia "Amy" Otis Earhart, lived until 1962.
One movie critic employed some lame cleverness in saying "I wish
biopics like this would get lost at sea." I share the sentiment but
don't endorse the word choice. It's ditto with the movie "Pollock"
(about artist Jackson Pollock) which I have also written about. Pollock
like Earhart dies in a tragic incident. With Pollock, much of the
general public wouldn't know about that. But Earhart's disappearance may
truly be the most celebrated (as in focused-on) mystery of U.S.
history.
"Amelia" suggested that the heroine sort of stumbled through her
commercial obligations, as she built her profile in part to get the
funding she needed. Reality suggests she took like a duck to water with
the commercial and self-promotional stuff. She wasn't so innocent. She
was married to a professional promoter.
The movie teases us with two rather oblique scenes that make us
wonder if she's a lesbian - who cares? Today we accept such facts in
stride. No titillation. It's really none of my business.
I see Swank reciting lines that seem stiff and contrived. It's as
if such lines might have been written in a high school drama class.
"Let's make Amelia look independent and free-spirited." The image could
have been presented in a more understated way, through her actions as
much as through her script lines.
A reviewer with "News Blaze" pointed out this shortcoming nicely,
asserting that Swank seemed to "self-consciously channel the stilted
speech of Katherine Hepburn." This reviewer's name is Prairie Miller. He
further states that this movie "barely skims the surface of her life
and time." This reiterates what I was asserting early-on in this post,
that a panorama of disturbing history could have been shared and been
instructive. Like me, Mr. Miller cites "world wars and the Depression."
Reviewer Dennis Schwartz summed up the flick as a "formulaic star-power biopic."
I might be the only reviewer who suggests that Christopher
Eccleston as Noonan might have given the most genuine performance. He's
an ordinary Joe who shows up with a job to do. Unlike all the other
actors in the movie, he doesn't have to put on any special airs. All the
other actors have to project such gravity. I'm sure all those
other people (as portrayed) felt the usual combination of fears and
thrills in their lives. They should have let their hair down.
The dirigible "Hindenburg" exploded in 1937. The Glenn Miller swing
band debuted in New York. (Stewart and June Allyson starred in the
spot-on biopic.) Social Security was getting formed in 1937. The clouds
of war were horribly ominous. Shirley Temple was captivating America.
It's too bad we didnt' get a better flavor of the decade from "Amelia."
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment