![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Released in 1998, you could almost see this as a dry-run for the X-Men movies. It was directed by Bryan Singer, starred Ian McKellan and Bruce Davison, and the central relationship is a lot like the Magneto/Pyro subplot in X2. It also has David Schwimmer in it, who I just realized might've been a sort of Mickael Keaton/Batman if he'd played Cyclops. I'm just saying, I wouldn't be surprised if he could've pulled it off.
Still, despite the talent both behind and in front of the camera, it never seems to come together. I found myself asking why they made this particular Stephen King story a movie? The premise goes something like this: Brad Renfro, all-American high school student, is fascinated by the Holocaust and notices that an old man living nearby is really Kurt Dussander, a Nazi war criminal on the run. Now, if you found a Nazi war criminal, what would you do? Turn him in? You'd be bringing a vile monster to justice. The Israeli government would pay you a hefty bounty, making you both rich and a literal bounty hunter, like Boda Fett only cooler because you're taking down Nazis. You'd have the admiration of millions, and the best damn Natalie Portman pick-up line ever.
I bet that's how she got knocked up. She's on the set of Black Swan, chatting to some guy, he's going "Yeah, this Nina chick is kooky, but you know what's really crazy? That time I caught a Nazi war criminal." Boom. Pregnant.
Instead, Todd Bowden blackmails Dussander to hear about how he killed Jews in a concentration camp. Uh. Okay. Why? We never get any reason why Bowden would act that way, and it's the premise of the movie! I get that the movie is trying to make him an everyman, to say how anyone could descend into evil, but it's too vague. No one would act that way, so instead of being a descent into evil, we're just watching a sociopath become an even bigger sociopath.
Like, did he know someone who fought in WW2 and he's curious about the other side? Is he supposed to represent the fascination with Nazism that turned the History Channel into the Hitler Channel, or the gore-obsessed mindset that popularized Faces of Death? Any of those is an interesting choice, but the movie needs to go beyond "Everyone can be a Nazi!" Because, well, everyone didn't.
This contributes to the bigger problem. Films should either educate or entertain, hopefully both. I can take an unsympathetic protagonist if his story arc is building to a larger point. But I really can't tell what point Apt Pupil is going for, with all the Nazi regalia and the dead cats and the murdered hustlers. Maybe if they'd made the point that Bowden intends to eventually turn Dussander in, he might've been more sympathetic and it would've worked as just a thriller, since you'd care about what happens to him. But, no.
Also, Singer adds a very prominent gay subtext to the story. He takes out some sexual scenes from King's story and adds in a scene where Bowden has a failed sexual encounter and his girlfriend asks if he likes boys (a line that echoes in his mind later on during a montage). One of the characters is a gay hustler, and another is a high school faculty member who is suggested to seek sexual relationships with teenage boys. Plus, there's a part where Bowden tells Dussander to go fuck himself and Ian McKellan replies "Oh, my dear boy. Don't you see? We are fucking each other." It makes more sense in context, but you don't exactly need Freud to figure this one out.
I don't have a problem with gay subtext, but it comes in two varieties. There's the fun kind, like in every Sherlock Holmes show that's come out since Jeremy Brett died, and then there's the kind where it's an actual metaphor, like in X-Men. X-Men, it works there, because of the themes of civil rights and oppression. Here, I'm not so sure. I mean, they're Nazis! Maybe they were suggesting some kind of internalized homophobia in closeted gay men being responsible for their assholishness, but that doesn't come across. It's like they're doing the fun kind of gay subtext in a movie about Nazis. Or, like, they're going "Look how fucked up and creepy these two men are! They might be having sex with each other!"
I don't see how that could be the case, since Singer and McKellan are out gay men, but what other interpretation can you take away? Gay subtext isn't like Katie McGrath, it doesn't improve everything it's in.
This post has now been improved. Also, HOLY SHIT.*
So, thank you Apt Pupil for possibly leading to Ian McKellan as Magneto, but I don't think you're the definitive 'suburban teenager blackmails Nazi war criminal to hear about concentration camps' movie.
*If she said "Ravish me," I would go right through her armor, Excalibur style.
Still, despite the talent both behind and in front of the camera, it never seems to come together. I found myself asking why they made this particular Stephen King story a movie? The premise goes something like this: Brad Renfro, all-American high school student, is fascinated by the Holocaust and notices that an old man living nearby is really Kurt Dussander, a Nazi war criminal on the run. Now, if you found a Nazi war criminal, what would you do? Turn him in? You'd be bringing a vile monster to justice. The Israeli government would pay you a hefty bounty, making you both rich and a literal bounty hunter, like Boda Fett only cooler because you're taking down Nazis. You'd have the admiration of millions, and the best damn Natalie Portman pick-up line ever.
I bet that's how she got knocked up. She's on the set of Black Swan, chatting to some guy, he's going "Yeah, this Nina chick is kooky, but you know what's really crazy? That time I caught a Nazi war criminal." Boom. Pregnant.
Instead, Todd Bowden blackmails Dussander to hear about how he killed Jews in a concentration camp. Uh. Okay. Why? We never get any reason why Bowden would act that way, and it's the premise of the movie! I get that the movie is trying to make him an everyman, to say how anyone could descend into evil, but it's too vague. No one would act that way, so instead of being a descent into evil, we're just watching a sociopath become an even bigger sociopath.
Like, did he know someone who fought in WW2 and he's curious about the other side? Is he supposed to represent the fascination with Nazism that turned the History Channel into the Hitler Channel, or the gore-obsessed mindset that popularized Faces of Death? Any of those is an interesting choice, but the movie needs to go beyond "Everyone can be a Nazi!" Because, well, everyone didn't.
This contributes to the bigger problem. Films should either educate or entertain, hopefully both. I can take an unsympathetic protagonist if his story arc is building to a larger point. But I really can't tell what point Apt Pupil is going for, with all the Nazi regalia and the dead cats and the murdered hustlers. Maybe if they'd made the point that Bowden intends to eventually turn Dussander in, he might've been more sympathetic and it would've worked as just a thriller, since you'd care about what happens to him. But, no.
Also, Singer adds a very prominent gay subtext to the story. He takes out some sexual scenes from King's story and adds in a scene where Bowden has a failed sexual encounter and his girlfriend asks if he likes boys (a line that echoes in his mind later on during a montage). One of the characters is a gay hustler, and another is a high school faculty member who is suggested to seek sexual relationships with teenage boys. Plus, there's a part where Bowden tells Dussander to go fuck himself and Ian McKellan replies "Oh, my dear boy. Don't you see? We are fucking each other." It makes more sense in context, but you don't exactly need Freud to figure this one out.
I don't have a problem with gay subtext, but it comes in two varieties. There's the fun kind, like in every Sherlock Holmes show that's come out since Jeremy Brett died, and then there's the kind where it's an actual metaphor, like in X-Men. X-Men, it works there, because of the themes of civil rights and oppression. Here, I'm not so sure. I mean, they're Nazis! Maybe they were suggesting some kind of internalized homophobia in closeted gay men being responsible for their assholishness, but that doesn't come across. It's like they're doing the fun kind of gay subtext in a movie about Nazis. Or, like, they're going "Look how fucked up and creepy these two men are! They might be having sex with each other!"
I don't see how that could be the case, since Singer and McKellan are out gay men, but what other interpretation can you take away? Gay subtext isn't like Katie McGrath, it doesn't improve everything it's in.
This post has now been improved. Also, HOLY SHIT.*
So, thank you Apt Pupil for possibly leading to Ian McKellan as Magneto, but I don't think you're the definitive 'suburban teenager blackmails Nazi war criminal to hear about concentration camps' movie.
*If she said "Ravish me," I would go right through her armor, Excalibur style.
