Random (and not-so-random) thoughts on BE
I know Travolta is a Scientologist (hence my reference to the clam thingie) but how is the movie about Scientology?
Well, it's written by Hubbard.
•
http://www.xenu.net/
•
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/05/051202.html
And from the Ebert review:
"Battlefield Earth" was written in 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. The film contains no evidence of Scientology or any other system of thought; it is shapeless and senseless, without a compelling plot or characters we care for in the slightest. The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.
To be honest, I think it was an attempt to put Hubbard's name back in the public eye to reap fresh meat. If the film had been
good, and the young people flocked to Hubbard as a storyteller ....
Unfortunately for Scientology the film absolutely sucked. With any luck, it will be twenty years or so before they try something so stupid again. But then again, since people are trying to turn
The Matrix into a religion, maybe Travolta and Co. have a point.
After all, there is
this review, which tries really hard to lend it some credibility.
But regardless of intentions, when critics are comparing you to both Ed Wood's
Plan 9 and Waters'
Polyester, you're in bad shape.
I did find
this letter blasting the BE project and also L. Ron.
Personally, I think the ideological relationship 'twixt BE and Scientology can be found in the strange ideas that pop up in the script. It's kind of like watching a newly-discovered tribe and not understanding what their rituals and social customs mean. Scientologists, I'm told, understand the plot and script in a different way than the rest of us.
But I disagree with the
Evil Dead comparison; at no time did Raimi expect us to take
any of those films seriously. Watching ED2 (
Dead by Dawn), it becomes clear that the director is laughing with us. Such an attitude, for comparison, is the redeeming aspect of
Warlock, starring Julian Sands. Otherwise, it's an overstated B-class, and that, I think, was the deliberate point of the ED films. BE, though, somehow, expects us to take it seriously, and that's the biggest laugh of all.
As a barely-related critical note, though, look at the impact that has had on movies.
Star Wars IV was a detailed production, but it's a B-class at heart, and that's what everyone forgets. In the modern day, though, I'll occasionally see films on that principle. I paid money to see Broderick in
Godzilla and whoever the hell was in
Deep Impact; I went into those films with B-class expectations and, as a result, got my money's worth.
The Matrix? Now there's a B-class that took itself too seriously. I honestly think that film was made because someone spent a load on a clunky effects system and wanted to show it off.
In that sense, I understand some people's attraction to BE. I
love bad films, but only if they're self-consciously bad, like
Rocky Horror or
Microwave Massacre. It's the wacky ones like
Class Reunion Massacre that disturb me; that film had a stick up its ass for how bad that was.
thanx,
Tiassa
