dual personalities

So actress Jody Foster did not mince words when she recently expressed her thoughts on superhero pics and similar blockbusters. “Going to the movies has become like a theme park,” she said, referencing Marvel and other comic book adaptations.

She added, “Studios making bad content in order to appeal to the masses and shareholders is like fracking — you get the best return right now but you wreck the earth.” Then in a final jab she said, “It’s ruining the viewing habits of the American population and then ultimately the rest of the world.”

I don’t agree with everything she said, but she is not wrong. Case in point: I watched Logan (2017) the other night. It stars Hugh Jackman in the latest Wolverine outing and was written/directed by James Mangold.  In the near future (2029), a “weary Logan cares for an ailing Professor X, somewhere on the Mexican border. However, Logan’s attempts to hide from the world, and his legacy, are upended when a young mutant arrives, pursued by dark forces.”

Besides Jackman, it stars Patrick Stewart and Daphne Keen as a 10-year old mutant. It is not a terrible movie–it held my interest and there is some character development–but it is mind-numbingly violent and a veritable blood-bath of torture, dismemberment and slaughter.

Why? Why do such movies have to be so violent? And Hollywood elites wonder why there is so much violence in this country (650 murders in Chicago alone in 2017!) We have all become immune to it, hardly registering how disgusting it is.

There is a scene in Logan where old Professor X, played by Patrick Stewart, watches Shane (1953) with the little girl in a  hotel room. He tells her he remembers seeing it when he was a little boy “almost 100 years ago.” They watch Stonewall get shot in the street by Jack Palance and then his funeral on the windy hilltop where the Swedish farmer leads his compatriots in the Lord’s Prayer. Later we see Shane saying goodbye to Joey in the background of the scene and we wonder how much the vacant-eyed little girl is absorbing as she wanders in and out.

At the end of the film (spoiler alert!) the mutant children bury Logan who has died saving them. The little girl recites Shane’s words:

Joey, there’s no living with… with a killing. There’s no going back from one. Right or wrong, it’s a brand. A brand sticks. There’s no going back. Now you run on home to your mother, and tell her… tell her everything’s all right. And there aren’t any more guns in the valley.

It is an effecting scene and the writers of the film know enough about films to have included the references to Shane, one of the best movies ever made. (I wonder how many of the viewers were even able to make the connection at the end, but that’s besides the point.)

It is a terrible joke really. In Shane one shocking murder results in the hero having to take matters into his own hands and kill three bullies in a final shoot-out in order to save the innocent farmers. He pays for his sacrifice. In Logan the death count is catastrophic–even the metaphorical “farmers” are butchered through Wolverine and Professor X’s stupidity. Basically everyone dies except the mutant children, who are, it must be noted, killers themselves. They move on to some haven “in Canada.”

It is just a mish-mosh of ideas. Nothing really makes sense or hangs together. It throws in references to make it appear to have meaning when there really is none. I read a review that calls Wolverine “messianic”– please.

The end credits roll to Johnny Cash:

Cool, but that doesn’t ultimately give the movie meaning.