Skip to main content

Poseidon Misadventure?

The Poseidon Adventure is one of my top ten favourite films - for various reasons that include unforgettable performances by Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, not to mention Red Buttons, plus grime-smeared survivors leaping into water-filled inverted steam shafts. It is a movie that exceeds labels such as camp, kitsch, so-bad-it's-good, dreck or B-movie, to simply rise to the top of any list of disaster flicks from the 70s, surely one of the most viable, and riveting, genres of a very fecund period. The only film that comes close, but is truly dreck in comparison, is The Cassandra Crossing, which, starring a pre-murder O.J. Simpson, and featuring the twin themes of the bubonic plague and The Holocaust, is doomed now to be a modish curio and not a classic, thought its mix of bio-terrorism and concern with anti-semitism is still highly-charged stuff today.

So why am I so discomfited by the news that the film has been remade, and is one of the summer's biggest thrill-rides, retitled simply as Poseidon? Several elements of the new project are very promising: it is helmed by Wolfgang Petersen, director of arguably the finest film ever made about survival at sea, and the human conflict that entails (Das Boot not his lukewarm The Perfect Storm); Josh Lucas is one of the more under-rated of his generation, and looks good in the trailer; even Richard Dreyfuss, that antsy ham recently withdrawn from the London stage due to some sort of ailment, is a worthy cast member, since his admirable part in the greatest - and most watery - blockbuster of the 70s, Jaws, must surely entitle him to one last shot at such an entertainment.

And yet, and yet, warning bells, and red lights, and fog horns, keep ringing. Is it that the CGI looks suspiciously like this is Titanic Part Deux? Is it the absence of any major actors, other than the aforementioned, and instead, a cast of TV stalwarts and young guns yet to make a household name for themselves? Is it the presence of Kurt Russell, sans eyepatch? Is it the feeling that the script has airbrushed out the twin agons of an elderly couple voyaging to the Holy Land, while a tormented, nearly-excommunicated priest, vies to lead his flock to the promised land, where the hull is thinnest, and God's acetylene torch can best cut through the steel like butter?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".