Drunkard movies. They are a sub-genre all unto themselves. Capturing a side of human nature that is rarely pleasant, not often uplifting. I post this commentary motivated by Flight, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Denzel Washington. No doubt a movie that deserves its buzz, Washington’s performance is clearly outstanding. As a movie Flight does, however, fail to live up to its promotional hype, perhaps even misleading to the extent that the airplane’s maneuvering and crashing was given so much publicity. Yes it is a great special effect, and even a great sequence, but in the overall context, this part of the story is truly outweighed by the potential of the underlying story. And that unfulfilled potential is what disappoints.
The film presents us with a truly flawed hero, propelled to the public limelight by a spectacular aerial maneuver that saved many lives, but self-conscious about his own private flaw, which he knows can drag him down from those hero heights. Truly, and with no good explanation, his transformation is sudden and almost out of nowhere: in a public hearing set up to consolidate his hero status he reveals he is an alcoholic and was under the influence while flying. Then the movie ends.
After seeing Flight I went back and saw The Lost Weekend, once again (and you can too here). It is from 1945, but is still very watchable. The encircling of Don Birnam (Ray Milland)’s mind by his overpowering addiction is compelling and has direct consequences, personally, for his loved ones, and for his almost loved ones. In Crazy Heart, Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) is consumed by his addiction and has lost his life to it, and the story is one of redemption.
In Flight, the consequences of Capt. Whitaker’s dependency are well… he saves the plane from crashing and almost everyone from dying. He drinks and drives relentlessly. He can face an FAA inquiry panel fearlessly. And then… he changes his mind and declares he is an alcoholic. What? So I took another look at Providence, a film that always left me thirsty. To no avail. This film I recently found on You Tube after having looked for it countless times to rent or purchase. I had always remembered it as outstanding when I saw it in theaters, yes in the theater, long ago. It is. Judge for yourself here. If you really feel you need a moralizing binge after that one, check out Days of Wine and Roses.
Sometimes it helps to use the tools of the writer as an exercise to check that nagging feeling that there is something wrong. Those what ifs, those structural pivots and elements. In Flight, it seems that the stake character was not used fully and that the Break Into Three was contrived. To see what I mean, I devised two alternate story developments, as that simple mind exercise:
In the first alternate story the stake character could have been Katerina – his lover and flight attendant. She survives the crash but is incapacitated, in a coma or unable to communicate. At the FAA hearing, when confronted with the empty galley bottles, he throws Katerina under the bus, showing us that his addiction has taken over his life completely. To do this, however, the hearing would have to be the Midpoint and a False High. He is the public hero but we know better. It is only at the All is Lost point, after Katerina wakes up, when he faces what he really is, his Dark Night of the Soul. Just like Don Birnam hocks the coat that symbolized the relationship with his supportive lover to get a gun and end his life but she stops him at the end, so Capt. Whitaker could have come to his realization through his relationship with Katerina.
In another alternate story, closer to what the film is as made now, the stake character is Nicole, the heroin addict. Using her this way, a greater codependency could have been fleshed out. As it is she is completely sober after her stint at the hospital, is faithful to her AA program and you wonder why she really is staying with Whitaker (of course she leaves). A greater tension swing and consequences could have been developed here. Relapses, car accidents, whatever. Dark Night of the Soul would be the near death of Nicole, forcing Whitaker to confront his dependency problem. Again, him acing the hearing at the Midpoint instead of using it to Break into Three would have given this alternate story greater tension.
Life is made up of what ifs and, as I said, Flight is a very good movie with outstanding performances, direction, cinematography. John Goodman’s camera time is scant but extreme, and between this movie and Argo a nomination is surely in the wings for him. Yet, there was that nagging doubt as we exited the theater that left a sense of unsatisfactory incompleteness. A thirst for something more.
C.J. Rangel – Nov. 2012
Good review! So what you’re saying is that even though the pilot gets away with his acts, in the end he’s left with his own conscience to face up to. Modern day twist on Dovtoyesky’s ‘Crime and Punishment’, one could say. Our acts may be constrained by the societal rule of law, but in the end ~the argument goes~, when faced with the possibility that a very big crime can go unpunished, and it is us who committed it, then the only thing left to do is to place ourselves in that place of shame, since no one else will. Of course, this is not what real life is like, but rather what we would like to believe it’s like: that our good human nature will prevail over our dark side, even if our survival as we know it will be over, for the larger good of mankind. A moral theme that Hollywood loves, the romanticism of it going way back to its early love of tapping into nineteen century literature for film adaptations. Justice as a theme, and in who’s hands is it in. Living in a society where the constructs of the rule of law are so complicated, being faced with the concept that crime can go unpunished anyway is a very contemporary and topical notion and part of what the larger conversation society isl having right now. Also, thank you by the way for the recommendation to check out these other films in relation to The Flight: will do!
I think that the take can be different on this. To me what its showing is the risk taking mindset that is more pervasive now in an A-track situation in today’s environment. In other words, it’s more common than not that a professional who by all appearances can perform and does perform, even after a few skid marks is what is being valued here. Forget the hype about the stupid propeller. We know that’s not the film. One can have a conversation about the film or about the hype around it, but I personally will choose the film. Let others say what they want. So to me the question is, what is the film doing: Exposing this type of mind set, or glorifying it?