The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Movie Takes
Print Email

Movie Takes

Alien Trespass

If movies were just for fun -- as, admittedly, an awful lot of people think they are, Alien Trespass, directed by R.W. Goodwin to a script by James Swift and Steven P. Fisher, would be a barrel of monkeys. Or at least you would think so. There are some wonderfully funny moments in it, too, most of them related to the venerable Cartesian premise of the classic s-f flick that an unimaginable alien presence, this one named Urp, has had to take over a human body, that of Professor Ted Lewis (Eric McCormack), in order to accomplish its purpose on earth -- in this case a benign one. One of my favorite such moments comes when Ted's wife Lana (Jody Thompson), who is way more blatantly sexual than any actual 1950s movie wife could have been, first meets the alien Ted on the morning after he has returned from the mysterious space-ship and remembers "something mother said" -- that she would wake up one morning and there would be a stranger sitting across from her at breakfast.

Yet somehow the movie has turned out to be a spectacular flopperoo. Almost no one has been to see it. Already, two-plus weeks after its opening, it is gone from the only place it was still playing near me after its first, disastrous week. You'll be lucky -- so to speak -- if you can find it anywhere before it comes out on DVD. There would hardly be any point in reviewing it now, but for the fact that it provides an illustrative example of what is wrong with the prevailing mode or style of movie-making in Hollywood at the moment, which is what is often called, in spite of the confusing nature of the term, postmodern. The po-mo master figure is the critic-as-hero, a brainiac whose highly trained intelligence takes a look back at the movies of 50 or 60 or 80 or 90 years ago and explains to his wised up contemporaries what they were really about.

Nothing, of course, offers a more target-rich environment for this sort of criticism than the 1950s science fiction flick, and Alien Trespass is an attempt to make a latter-day version of one but with the real, critic-supplied meanings filled in for us. The characters in this pastiche, of course, must remain as clueless as ever. It's still part of their charm. But we have seen enough of those now-aging s-f classics to catch on immediately to what they, and now their imitators, were really about -- namely sex and the forms of social tyranny (as by the 1950s they were beginning to seem) by which it was so often denied to those who were hormonally most ready for it. There is a kind of shame, I find, in looking into what these people took such pains to keep private. We feel a trespass of our own in watching what we are not supposed to watch -- and what is supposed to be invisible to the people themselves. Some people find this titillating. I find it embarrassing. So, apparently, do a lot of other people.

The Quentinsensial postmodern director is, of course, one Q. Tarantino who has not himself been box office Death Proof -- for example in the film of that name which was paired with Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror in the mock double-feature, Grindhouse, of 2007. But in those of his movies that still manage to sell a ticket or two, the postmodern, self-referential movie-about-the-movies quality is modified by a tenuous umbilical to reality. Ironic self-reference is trumped by ironies of a more universal sort that don't look as if they've been lifted from some comic book merely for humorous purposes. For instance, the conversation about fast food between John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction -- now itself often imitated, as in Martin McDonagh's In Bruges  -- has a certain horrifying originality to it. Yes, we think, schooled as we are by decades of black comedy and Hannah Arendt's banality-of-evil hypothesis, reality is like that.

There is no comparable moment in Alien Trespass. Reality has been checked at the door. The smart-alec has it all his own way over the shrewd observer. His fun at the expense of our parents' and grandparents' innocence -- or our own, if we are old enough -- really is fun, too. Everybody is in on the joke. But that's just the problem with it. This is hardly the first movie -- or book or TV show or comedy skit -- to send up the science fiction movies of the 1950s. They have already been milked for most of the laughs they are ever going to supply to our more knowing generation, which makes it quite an accomplishment that Alien Trespass elicits any chuckles at all, let alone the number that it does.

But we can't help asking, what is the point of it? We already know that our ancestors were hopeless if sometimes lovable boobs who took this stuff (sort of) seriously, just as they thought repression was good for you. Maybe we did ourselves, once upon a time, and we enjoy laughing at our own childish innocence from the vantage point of our 21st-century sophistication. Like Mr. Tarantino, Mr. Goodwin and company just love that whole '50s ambiance, and have provided mock trailers and newsreels along with the movie itself to prove it. But in the end it has nothing more to say than the eternal pronouncement of the smug progressive: "We know better now." Well, maybe we do. But when the movie has nothing to offer beyond such condescension to the past, audiences seem not to like it. Go figure!

Letter to the Editor

James Bowman is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, media essayist for the New Criterion, and The American Spectator's movie and culture critic. His new book, Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, was recently published by Encounter Books.

Comments

Appleby| 4.21.09 @ 6:33AM

Could it be that we are simply tired of snickering, childish, sex-heavy Beavis and Butthead slop?

Could there possibly be people out here that enjoyed those old movies for what they were (including their special effects budgets of $1.19)?

Could somebody please explain to Hollyweird that re-making and ruining old movies because you do not get the point of the originals is a waste of time and resources? Could they maybe do that before the proto-bomb Star Trek Reborn fiasco actually hits the theatres?

Sharon E. Dreyer| 4.21.09 @ 8:50AM

Appleby, you are exactly correct! Some of the oldies are so much better because of their actors, B&W lighting, and low budget special effects. The powers that be in Hollyweird are so arrogant that they think they can improve old movies because they are so much "smarter" or whatever else pops into their brains. Let's consider how well their updated version of The Day the Earth Stood Still did at the box office? Who can improve on Michael Rennie and Patricia Neal? The new Star Trek will be a feast of special effects, but will it hold true to Gene Roddenberry's vision? Only time will tell.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.21.09 @ 9:40AM

Sharon,
One would hope that the mental derangement of the costume-fixated extrovert behavior of the last generation of “Trekies” is a genetic dead end, therefore incapable of being passed on to their offspring which (due to libido issues) are always acquired at the Pon Farr adoption agency.

John II| 4.21.09 @ 11:00AM

Wait! The remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is not a send-up of the original, for the original (complete with gaseous and earnest commentary from the intolerable Drew Pearson in a cameo appearance) was itself an exercise in the early stirrings of smug progressivism, a posture that smugly progressive Hollywood is incapable of recognizing, much less poking fun at (pace the born-again David Zucker and associates).

The reason the updated "Day the Earth Stood Still" flopped is that, unlike its predecessor, it exhibits no coherence, no human interest, and a preoccupation with gosh-wow special effects of no very strong connection to the vaguely smug theme. In other words, the new "Day the Earth Stood Still" serves one boring purpose, if inadvertently: it illustrates the endpoint of progressivism.

Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 12:37AM

Alien Trespass links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of the smug progressive: “We know better now.” Well, maybe we do. But when the movie has nothing to offer beyond such condescension to the past, audiences seem not to like it. Go figure! Read More Share and Enjoy: Related posts: Obama’s Opiate Let’s cut through all of Barack Obama’s baloney. His... Good Riddance As I mark my fiftieth year in the craft... . Author: admin Filed Under…

DANNY| 4.22.09 @ 1:17AM

Mr.Bowman's reviews are getting more and
more cryptic....Can't tell whether he likes
the film....can't even figure out what's he's talking
about...I'm a college grad-- maybe I need to go
back & get a PhD so I can understand his reviews.

Lingerie| 9.17.09 @ 9:25PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie

Leave a Comment

ADVERTISEMENT

In Sum, IPCC Discredited

Paul Chesser

* * * *

That Dangerous Radical . . . Marvin Olasky?

Robert Stacy McCain

* * * *

Forget the Committees

Greg Scandlen

* * * *

Reid Disses David Broder

Philip Klein

* * * *

Moment of Truth

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

No Sales Days in the Afghan War

George H. Wittman

* * * *

Bureaucrats With Badges

Mark Hyman

* * * *

Obama in Wonderland

Ken Blackwell

* * * *

A Writer Speaks

William Tucker

* * * *

What Has Changed?

Robert P. Kirchhoefer

* * * *

High Stakes

Manon McKinnon

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT