Enemy of the State
Lizpieta
going to see a popcorn movie. Or perhaps it's just taken it to a different
level. At any rate, if you haven't seen this movie yet, DON'T read this!
Let me preface this by saying that I love Will Smith. He never fails to make
me smile. He has charisma up the wazoo! Really, I'd pretty much see whatever
he's in just for that reason. Now that being said, after seeing "Enemy of the
State," I just want to know what the heck was up with the blender? I mean, the
guy pretty much loses everything--job, family, reputation,
dear-friend-ex-lover, all sense of security and privacy--but he really, really
gets upset about a BLENDER?
I suppose it's there for some comic relief or symbolism or whatever, but it
just didn't work for me. Perhaps it was the blender they put the script
through... I'd really love to see the spec script just to fill in all the
stuff that was OBVIOUSLY cut out with a blunt instrument. Such as:
What was the point of recording the congressman? Now, I can live with the
incredible coincidence that they happened to tap in to his cel phone at the
precise moment he was telling exactly where he would be and at what time, and
that he happened to be having a rendezvous with an aide at that exact time and
place. Sloppy, but I can live with it. But aside from a single scene saying
that if the "op" was unauthorized heads would roll, this was never really
followed up. Or did I miss something? As a matter of fact, I don't recall
that using the "enemy's" technology was followed up on at all! It didn't get
them out of the situation in the end. Was it just to show they COULD do it?
That they were clever? Or is something missing here?
And what was the point of the communications techs recording the scene in the
van near the end? Sure, OK, it was a CYA maneuver, but was this spelled out in
any way? Perhaps I missed something earlier when I was bitching about how they
spun into the lingerie shop security cam footage, as if it were taken in 3-D.
Because, boy, did I BITCH about that!!! (A similar conceit was used in "Blade
Runner," a frustratingly distracting bit in an otherwise fabulous film).
And why did Gene Hackman's character end up at the beach in the end? The last
we see of him he's walking away in the rain, undetected by the bad guys (who
are dead anyway), POOF, he's gone. Now maybe, since they showed the boat
screensaver we saw when they were decoding the incriminating disk, this is
supposed to imply that he somehow was able to rescue the disk and use it to
gain back his pension/reputation/freedom. Or maybe he used the tape of the
congressman's rendezvous to blackmail him. But...was this clear?
Or is it just me?
Overall I suppose I enjoyed the film on a purely popcorn level. There was
suspense and tension, it wasn't totally predictable, and while not having any
sex scenes, the requisite breast quota was met in the lingerie shop (which kept
the boyfriend happy). But the characters were pretty darn thin, the plot holes
were pretty darn large, and the plausibility factor was pretty darn shaky.
I'll bet the original spec was good, though!
Opinions?
--Airgirl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't
pick your friend's nose." --Unknown
MAS
wcol...@my-dejanews.com
lizp...@aol.com (Lizpieta) wrote:
> Learning about screenwriting has really started to suck the enjoyment out of
> going to see a popcorn movie. Or perhaps it's just taken it to a different
> level. At any rate, if you haven't seen this movie yet, DON'T read this!
>
...
>
> And what was the point of the communications techs recording the scene in the
> van near the end? Sure, OK, it was a CYA maneuver, but was this spelled out
> in any way?
Not sure we were paying enough attention when we saw this scene last night at
movie, but trying to piece it together afterwards, we though perhaps Gene
Hackman had done the recording at the end from their truck (in the chaos or
after he convinced them to leave the truck to go inside) and that the FBI had
found the recording and the techs let on like they had done the recording
(for some reason; didn't want to acknowledge the presence of Gene Hackman due
to possible incrimination or reprisal?). Thought Gene Hackman left the
country for parts unknown as he'd had enough, time to retire; Rachel was dead
(whom he was supposed to look after), plus he wasn't really sure who at NSA
might want to pursue him; time to rethink anyway...
I was wondering though what brand of blender this was that they made such a
deal about...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dan Evans
in a bunch of techno-jazz and hit "high-speed puree."
I noticed they used a still of Hackman from "The Conversation." This was a
much better film with a lot less action. The whole plot turned on the
inflection of a single word, it was brilliant.
All this showing off, all this tedious plotting makes me tired.
And besides, I think they ripped off my script:
Lizpieta
--Airgirl, more confused on further reflection
>Subject: Re: Enemy of the State
>From: wcol...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: 11/22/98 3:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <739s91$b7v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Greg
> The movie was fun, and the script was tight.
The movie was fun by virture of the insertion of some real nice flowing
camerawork and totally kick-ass action scenes, typical of jerry
Bruckheimer movies. Some of the camera stuff looked like
it had been inserted to pep up a flagging movie (eg. satellite stuff).
Smith is fine in this, as are the other cast members. For me, it
looked like a classy production, cast and director grappling with a slightly
under par screenplay. For example, the running blender gag was way overplayed.
I came out feeling like I'd seen an OK movie though, but I certainly won't be
using it as an example for my own writing of what a good Hollywood screenplay
should look like.
Kenneth Bearden
> The movie was fun by virture of the insertion of some real nice flowing
> camerawork and totally kick-ass action scenes, typical of jerry
> Bruckheimer movies.
Tony Scott is a good action director. Top Gun and True Romance are among my
favorite movies.
Did you notice the very "True Romance" like shoot out ending? And the guy playing
the mafia boss (forgot his name) also played one of the cops in True Romance.
Kenneth.
Kenneth Bearden
> I suppose it's there for some comic relief or symbolism or whatever, but it
> just didn't work for me.
Yes, I didn't care much for the blender stuff either. I was like, "Yea, so, what's
next?"
> What was the point of recording the congressman? Now, I can live with the
> incredible coincidence that they happened to tap in to his cel phone at the
> precise moment he was telling exactly where he would be and at what time, and
> that he happened to be having a rendezvous with an aide at that exact time and
> place. Sloppy, but I can live with it. But aside from a single scene saying
> that if the "op" was unauthorized heads would roll, this was never really
> followed up. Or did I miss something?
I'm thinking they (Will and Gene) were trying to put some heat the other way--as in
Gene's speech about guerilla warfare. Same thing with the money being deposited in
Voight's account, and his credit cards being turned off.
> And what was the point of the communications techs recording the scene in the
> van near the end?
Yes, I know. I thought the van driver was going to be CIA or something.
> And why did Gene Hackman's character end up at the beach in the end? The last
> we see of him he's walking away in the rain, undetected by the bad guys (who
> are dead anyway), POOF, he's gone. Now maybe, since they showed the boat
> screensaver we saw when they were decoding the incriminating disk, this is
> supposed to imply that he somehow was able to rescue the disk and use it to
> gain back his pension/reputation/freedom. Or maybe he used the tape of the
> congressman's rendezvous to blackmail him. But...was this clear?
No. Hackman had all the money all the time. Remember the scene where Hackman gets
those stacks and stacks of bills. I think he's still in hiding, but he's living
life. The TV thing at the end with Will let Will know that Gene took his advice.
> Overall I suppose I enjoyed the film on a purely popcorn level.
It was OK. I'd rate it Fair on my scale. That's a 2 star movie on my 5 star
scale.
Did you happen to catch that early picture of Hackman when Voight was looking up
his identity? That's a shot of Hackman in Coppolla's "The Conversation". I
thought it was a nice touch--since "The Conversation" was basically the same movie
back in the early 70's.
Kenneth.
Kenneth Bearden
Lizpieta wrote:
> Who was Gabriel Byrne supposed to be?
He was working for Voight. They had Will bugged and tracked, so they set it up
for Will to run into Gabriel as Will was searching for Hackman.
Kenneth.
Daniel J. Fienberg
: The movie was fun, and the script was tight.
I thought the script was a mess, not that it was necessarily the
writer's fault. There were several places where the film felt truncated,
as if there was more background in the script, but that the film had to
be severely cut. There were meaningless spurts of dialogue which could
have been meaningful later-on, but just weren't. Like Jon Voight talking
to his wife/girlfriend/whatever and she says, "Honey, you should have
been head two years ago, but your time will come." What was with that?
Totally unsubstantiated by anything else on screen. And how pathetic and
convenient that Will smith and Jason Lee went to Georgetown together,
prompting Will Smith to immediately pass him his card. That was sortta
weak as well. I liked the idea of Enemy of the State serving as a sequel
to The Conversation, but it didn't make enough of that idea... Ah well...
-Daniel
--
Daniel J. Fienberg
d...@sas.upenn.edu
Daniel's Lion Den -- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~djf
"If I were you, Fienberg, I'd be pretty damn thankful that our flag was
still there that night after the British attack, just as it was during the
battles of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Battle of Iwo Jima..."
-Brian Burket
--
Blair P. Houghton
someone hitting the script. Good.
Daniel J. Fienberg<d...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>MAS (msi...@uswest.net) wrote:
>: The movie was fun, and the script was tight.
>
> I thought the script was a mess, not that it was necessarily the
>writer's fault. There were several places where the film felt truncated,
>as if there was more background in the script, but that the film had to
>be severely cut. There were meaningless spurts of dialogue which could
>have been meaningful later-on, but just weren't. Like Jon Voight talking
>to his wife/girlfriend/whatever and she says, "Honey, you should have
>been head two years ago, but your time will come." What was with that?
Actually, that was more flabby than disconnected. And it brings up my
main point about this movie, which is: it was operated on like a
multiple-gunshot victim on ER. Like Michael Jackson's face. Like
Bill Clinton's plausible deniability. It's a fucking mess.
There was a real script here, but my guess is it was a little too
straight, a little loose, and most probably predictable and cliche'd
in the last act.
That line is distinctive. It's a blatant case of explaining motive.
The only thing it doesn't do is have the character explaining his
own motive. So in the course of tightening up character, they
murdered style.
>Totally unsubstantiated by anything else on screen.
Exactly. As was this guy's ulterior motive. They needed to
give him a personal stake in the liberties he was taking with
the nation's security apparatus. (Problem was, I thought his
wife was the blonde that LawyerMan found at home, the one who
told him not to go in to talk to his wife. Took me a whole
different direction until she spoke, and then I realized she
was just an incarnation of the greek chorus...the Animal-House
kind of greek...)
>And how pathetic and
>convenient that Will smith and Jason Lee went to Georgetown together,
>prompting Will Smith to immediately pass him his card. That was sortta
>weak as well.
Yeah, but there had to be a short Degree of Separation. It wasn't
so much convenient as the reason Will Smith's character was in
the movie. Otherwise, it could have been about a sexy lingerie
model who witnesses a man being squished beneath a fire engine; then
later that night she discovers a mysterious computer device that
the man stuffed into her panties just before he died.
>I liked the idea of Enemy of the State serving as a sequel
>to The Conversation, but it didn't make enough of that idea... Ah well...
Agh! You bastard! That was going to be my tagline!
"Harry Caul's all growed up."
*Many* of the shots were homages to Coppola's surveillance-camera
angles from the Conversation.
I spotted a few other homages, and the whole thing was a basic
"fuck you" to the dorks who made Conspiracy Theory.
But, back to the thesis: Somewhere around the time the two
male leads found themselves dodging puddles in the railyard,
the producers amputated the head of the script and grafted on
a thing so hideous only Mike Ovitz could love it. The second
Will Smith displayed the damaged maguffin was the second we
saw the whole story destroyed, melted, and scorched along with
it. (It's interesting in a sarcastic way that a Type-I PCMCIA
card should be so badly abused yet the person wearing the
flaming coat was merely insulted by the flames).
At that point the movie morphed into The Sting meets Scarface.
Now, don't get me wrong. Compared with the last Bruckheimer
abortion I saw (that would be ARMAGEDDON, ach, ptooie!), this
was Shakespeare.
Tony Scott is to be commended for the way he executed this
project. Even the expository dreck was worked seamlessly into
the good parts of the story. The geeks were real geeks.
Things blew up in interesting ways (until the shootout). Even
the cat knew how to act (even if Old Deuteronomy himself
couldn't tell us why the fuck there was a cat in this movie).
And, most important, the technosprawl didn't get out of hand.
Maybe a little license with the 3-D processing stuff. And
the usual irrational window-dressing on mundane computer
screens (although I was surpised that the "Percent Complete"
widget didn't get billed in the titles; it had more lines
than Lisa Bonet).
--Blair
"Denise Huxtable's all growed up."
Gary Pollard
>
>I spotted a few other homages, and the whole thing was a basic
>"fuck you" to the dorks who made Conspiracy Theory.
Whatever the problems, it already wins a good mark from me for that.
Gary
MwsReader
> That's a shot of Hackman in Coppolla's "The Conversation". I thought
> it was a nice touch--since "The Conversation" was basically the same
> movie back in the early 70's.
Yeow! I'm not going to say EotS is a baaad movie... it was reasonably
entertaining... but you'd compare it to "The Conversation"??? Sure,
they were tipping their hat. But EotS was mass. TC was class.
JohnRobie
Rick Jones
>Let me preface this by saying that I love Will Smith. He never fails to make
>me smile. He has charisma up the wazoo! Really, I'd pretty much see whatever
>he's in just for that reason. Now that being said, after seeing "Enemy of the
>State," I just want to know what the heck was up with the blender? I mean, the
>guy pretty much loses everything--job, family, reputation,
>dear-friend-ex-lover, all sense of security and privacy--but he really, really
>gets upset about a BLENDER?
This was a screenwriting device known as a "joke." It is sometimes
also referred to as a "gag" or a "jest."
"Jokes" go back at least as far as vaudeville. Loosely defined,a
"joke" is the use of any surprising or ironic twist or conclusion to a
story or situation that elicits feeling of humour and, on occasion, a
physical response known as "laughter."
Kenneth Bearden
> Yeow! I'm not going to say EotS is a baaad movie... it was reasonably
> entertaining... but you'd compare it to "The Conversation"??? Sure,
> they were tipping their hat. But EotS was mass. TC was class.
>
I know a lot of film buffs and critics like Coppola's "The Conversation",
but it bored me to tears. I just saw it last year for the first time, but
it was hard for me to sit through.
Sorry. I'd have to say that I like EotS better.
Kenneth.
protagonist
Dan Evans wrote in message <739qeq$abp$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>The blender is pretty good symbology for the whole mess. They just crammed
>in a bunch of techno-jazz and hit "high-speed puree."
>
>
>And besides, I think they ripped off my script:
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~dfe123/godmachine.htm
>
there's a satellite in your story, you should sue them.
I think my computer crashed before I posted my response to the blender
question. I'll try to remember what I wrote.
The blender, in my opinion, was a really lame grail, representing our
ability to stay in control, to digest, to use common sense, compromise.
Enemy of the State made the embarrassing mistake of thinking it was the
first film to raise the question, "At what cost security?! AT WHAT PRICE
FREEDOM?!" Sadly, its answer to its own dumb question was a non commital
"Um...well..you know...you gotta...go with the flow...you gotta blend."
The first scene featuring the blender: Will Smith puts one ingredient into
the blender while his wife, watching TV, says something like, "Congress is
talking about violating the constitution." Will puts another ingredient in
while a man on TV counters her point with something like, "we are at war
with people who are trying to take our freedom away by blowing up
buildings." Will and his wife go back and forth in a really embarrassingly
written exchange that's supposed to provoke our tiny brains. Then, Will
says something like, "hey, don't worry about it" and hits BLEND.
Whiiiiiirr...He creates a metaphorical elixir, a healthy compromise. Having
done so, he points out that he watched a friend die that day. Brought back
to Earth by this news, his wife hugs him and tells him she loves him. They
have achieved equilibrium, which allows them to worry about the most
important things: Life, death and love. They have their blender.
The first blood that the antagonists draw is to loot Will's home. They take
his blender. They remove his capacity for objectivity, they draw him into
the "special world" of act 2, in which nothing is sacred. Will tells his
friend that what really pisses him off is that they took his blender,
because "he likes to blend." I'm pretty sure we were supposed to laugh
because it's quirky for a man to like his blender that much. That's why his
friend says, "I don't believe you. They trashed your whole house, and
you're worried about your blender." Just in case we needed some help,
there.
Meanwhile, the two techies are in a van outside Will's house, controlling
his life, and they're even using his blender to make drinks. You see, in a
high-tech society, if we do not learn to temper our passion for privacy
with a willingness to sacrifice for the common good, we won't really be
hanging on to any privacy, we'll simply be outlawing security, in which
case, only outlaws will be secure. They will come into our homes without
our permission, they will take our blenders away, and they will think
nothing of it.
To succeed, Will must learn the rules of the special world, with the help of
his mentor, Gene "phoned it in" Hackman, who appears in the movie for a
grand total of 9 minutes. Really, what Will has to do is learn to blend
without a blender. He has to become "proactive."
Will was a guy who didn't have any opinions about electronic freedom or
national security. Nevertheless, he used video surveillance to do his
ordinary job. Fate drew him into a world of extreme surveillance. He
learned to hate it. It was all over him, he had to strip naked just to get
away from it. He became a criminal. Then, he learned to master the
technology, used it to his benefit, and manipulated the bad guys into
shooting each other. I wonder if Scott chose Sizemore as the mobster
because he knew that he knew We do not see Will blending at the end- not
with a blender, anyway. He is on the couch with his wife and child. He has
learned that technology is not to be feared any more than it is to be taken
for granted. He has become lukewarm. Hurray. And the satellite keeps
moving around the Earth, and Larry King is talking about how we all need to
discuss this topic quite a bit. We all need to become familiar with the
pros and cons. We need to all be wishy washy and mediocre. We need to
write more movies like "Enemy of the State," and we need to make sure their
titles are even more forgettable. How about "Guilt of Suspicion?"
Enemy of the State was like eating a gigantic unsalted pretzel. I felt like
there was a man sitting next to me the entire time, jabbing me in the ribs,
saying, "Huh? Think about it....think about it, man..." Everyone in the
film talked like a screenwriter. Tony Scott's directing does NOT go
hand-in-hand with bland writing. True Romance was INCREDIBLE to watch. The
Fan was NOT. Crimson Tide was fun. The Last Boyscout was not. Tony has
some great things to show us. He's a fine director. He needs to fire
whoever's picking his jobs. If it's him, he needs to hire someone.
"It's not paranoia...if they're really after you." That's true. I'd like
to recommend a variation on that:
"It's not profound...if 'they're' just a guy who's only after you because
you have a tape of him committing a murder. I'd be after you, too. I hate
going to jail, that's why."
Dan Evans
>ability to stay in control, to digest, to use common sense, compromise.
I'm always reluctant to try to interpret symbolism in a film because I'm
afraid I'll read an interview with the writer where he says something like,
"Huh? The blender? -- Uh, no that didn't symbolize anything, that was just a
blender."
But I agree, this topic has been done in so many guises without touching on
the real issue -- machines and technology are not evil, only people can be
evil. Evil people should not be given power and good people should not be
denied access to it.
In a way, it's a lot like the question of gun control. Should we try to
deny everyone access to guns, or just criminals?
Not until recently have I felt that high technology was a threat to society,
but I don't believe it's the fault of technology. I think we are starting
to get some very bad actors in power at all levels of government and they
protect their power monopoly by attacking any competing source of power
(like Microsoft).