 |
| Scarlett Johansson |
In the year 2014, the concept of a blockbuster has altered greatly from its initial statement of being solely entertainment. Nowadays, films like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes or Godzilla are ravaged with societal subtext and weight. These films are held up to scrutiny and analyzed thoroughly for accuracy despite being films about anthropomorphic apes and lizards. To say the least, the blockbuster needs to be something more with philosophical depth, drawn out running times, and a sense of bigger purpose. Those that disagree dare to get lambasted for life never considering that deviance can breed something far more creative, unique, and redefine what a summer blockbuster could be. Enter director Luc Besson's Lucy, which is probably the most baffling blockbuster of 2014, but it is also an endlessly fascinating look into what sci-fi was and could be: delightfully bonkers.
The film focuses around Lucy (Scarlett Johansson), who is "just Lucy" as her passport will suggest. She is an enigmatic figure who gets thrown into a drug operation that ends up with a hyperactive stimulant called CPH4 entering her blood stream and making her use more percentage of her brain. From there, she accesses intelligence as well as environmental and metaphysical aspects of the world and universe. With allusions to the entirety of history, her purpose becomes something greater. Jumping into the film, almost nothing is known about her and by the end, there's even less. It pushes the illogical to the forefront as things progress and soon the world is nothing but silly exploitation of otherworldly concepts that give the film an adrenaline rush of mystery.
A lot of the film's success comes in the hands of Besson's ode to cinema's vast history. While the film is distinctly a sci-fi film, it borrows elements from almost every other genre as well. For Lucy, there are several scenes that recall iconic shots of 2001: A Space Odyssey if it had more car chases. It hearkens back to the idea of provocation through visuals, choosing not to give much depth to the story and instead let the brisk 90 minute running time excite and baffle. Its imagery is poetic in its excess, never allowing a deeper meaning to bog down the poignancy. Yes, the film is an exploration of what using 100% of our brain's capacity can do, but it raises more questions than answers about it. Anyone looking for logic as the film analyzes the brain's use at 40% or even the crazy collage that is 99% will be greatly disappointed. This is an art experiment disguised as an action film where the streets of France are in jeopardy constantly and the film manages to cyclically bookend with images of cells forming. What does it mean? Much like 2001, it is in the eye of the beholder, meant to connect differently with each (though Stanley Kubrick is easily more highbrow about it).
The film's attempt at philosophical is done through exposition by Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) at a college lecture. For the first half of the film, these two elements never overlap in anything but subject matter. It is an ambitious technique cutting between Lucy and Norman as the brain power becomes a more prominent subject. Even then, the exposition serves as a lecture of Besson's true intentions with the film. Whether or not he is successful depends on how stupid you want your logic to be. If you accept it as a nonsensical establishment, then the rest is a thrill ride full of stock footage that encapsulates nature and provides imagery to ponder over as juxtaposition. What Besson has done is found an effective way to take the montage elements of Sergei Eisenstein and create a profoundly visceral comment about his thoughts on human's connections and contribution to the world.
It is all fascinating despite being a very contradicting movie. It wants to argue that human needs to get back to the world, yet spends most of its running time killing nameless humans. There's many moments of vapidness that only work within the illogical scenarios. By the end, it raises a lot of questions because of this, thus leaving the viewer with plenty to discuss. For a sci-fi film, it is quick, scrappy, and won't waste your time with pointless exposition. Who is Lucy? Frankly, nobody cares to introduce her until moments before she is strapped to a briefcase full of drugs. This is how the universe operates. It glorifies the unknown and basks in lack of reasoning. The story is banal. The only real catharsis comes from the increasingly bonkers set pieces that if nothing else, will present one of the most creative, bizarre blockbusters of this year. Even the score by Eric Serra is eclectic and strange, choosing to mix artisan with aggressive action cliches.
One of the greatest aspects of 2014 is that it is the year of freaky Johansson. Pairing up with the engrossing, strange Under the Skin, the actress manages to become a homebody for directors with enigmatic images. She has very little identity and instead just seems to exist as a way for visual exposition. This isn't a bad thing, as it will likely draw audiences familiar with The Avengers to be drawn to art house films that raise existential questions. It may frustrate when the answers don't come clearly, but she does capture the charm of nothingness with awkward beauty. While Lucy pales in comparison to Under the Skin, both present fascinating takes on a genre that is frankly in need of some original content.
Maybe it doesn't have as much depth or context as its competitors, but Lucy is an experience of contemporary sci-fi jolted with silliness while aping the classics. It masquerades as a lowbrow action film, but with some of the most profound uses of visual effects so far this year. It is best approach on a visceral level instead of logical. If done correctly, it works as a powerful, memorable film that highlights just how strange sci-fi has to be. Its ambitions outweigh its thought, but with images like these, do we really care? It's not like Lucy wanted you to know that much. We don't even know her last name.
Comments
Post a Comment