Subject: REVIEW: INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996)

From: [email-masked] (Alex Brenner)
Date: 17 Jul 1996 21:19:40 GMT

INDEPENDENCE DAY
                       A film review by Alex Brenner
                        Copyright 1996 Alex Brenner

Dir: Roland Emmerich
Will Smith  Bill Pullman  Jeff Goldblum  Harvey Fierstein  Harry Connick Jr.

   At the risk of labouring an already overstressed point, I felt that it
would be worth adding my tu'penny ha'penny worth to the debate surrounding
this vastly popular film.  It seems to be the case now that every year the
moviegoing public selects one or two films and makes them massively
successful, and they are, largely without exception poor, if not downright
dire.  Last year we had the tedious, contrived 'Batman Forever,' the year
before that the characteristically vapid 'Lion King' and the pernicious
and subversive 'Forrest Gump,' and then before that, 'Jurassic Park.'  It
is saying something about a given group of films when dramatically the
most successful of their number is that saccharine and manipulative
dinosaur epic.  And, unsurprisingly, given that it was moulded by the same
hands which gave us the terrible 'Stargate,' 'Independence Day' is not
going to change any of that.  Before I launch into my list of objections,
firstly let me state that this is not a bad film in the class of 'Benji:
The Hunted' or 'Spy Hard.'  It possesses certain moments which a viewer
can enjoy, and as a whole it is not what one might categorise as
offensively bad.
   However, much has been made of the many ludicrous moments in the script
which betray the creator's uninterest in really suspending disbelief.  My
personal favourites include the bizarre idea that one could upload a virus
into an alien computer, the outrageous fluke of the First Lady a)surviving
and b)being found, and the notion that the fire that consumed a whole city
might somehow become channelled into a tunnel, which might vaguely be
considered reasonable if it were not for the clear portrayal of someone
surviving by hiding in a little side door.  Preposterous: whoever allowed
these into the final script needs to have his powers of discrimination
substantially upgraded.
   Still, one might be prepared to forgive this of the film.  After all,
amidst a hostile invasion by belligerent super-aliens, one might need a
little light relief.  The film does not let the critic off so lightly,
however: there are deeper problems with the film than that.  'Independence
Day' is extremely derivative.  Every five minutes I found myself being
reminded of other films, usually bad ones: 'Apollo 13,' 'Star Trek
6/Generations,' and, God forbid, 'Stargate.'  Upon consideration, it seems
that Emmerich is seeking to broaden the appeal of the film by nodding at
certain genre conventions.  Unfortunately, these nods inevitably lack
conviction, and thus the film assumes a patchy 'jack-of-all-trades and
master of none' aspect.  An example: as the film nears its climax, Jeff
Goldblum's character suddenly becomes very concerned about the
environment.  This is a difficult subject to handle without coming across
as glib or manipulative, but here it is such a momentary consideration
that it really opens a window on the director's technique.  Imagine: 'Gee,
the punters like environmental issues ... how can we squeeze it in?  Ah-ha
... ' (n.b. this goes some way also towards illustrating the difference
between a film like this and 'Mission: Impossible.'  For all the latter's
faults, it is undoubtedly the work of a man who knows his trade, whereas
'Independence Day' is in the main never more than workmanlike; where
'Independence Day' is derivative, 'Mission: Impossible' is allusive). 
Another example might be found in the use of homosexuality.  Not only does
fighter jock Will Smith have a boyfriend, which seems at odds with
Airforce regulations, but Harvey Fierstein is also allowed to be his
rampant, camp self.  Again, one gets the sense that, rather than there
being any honesty on Emmerich's part, he instead is winking
conspiratorially at Tarantino fans and those who feel that there should be
a more full representation of homosexuality on film - without actually
sympathising with their causes.  It all appears to be terribly cynical to
me.
   These are still gripes, momentary complaints rather than criticisms
about the work as a whole.  These are yet to come: there is little
question that the film is generally jaundiced.  With the exception of the
effects sequences, moer of which later, the film is subject to a terrible
defocussing of dramatic intensity.  Where the film should grip, it bores. 
There are several possible reasons for this.  Firstly, Emmerich makes
great play of giving his characters lengthy introductions, showing us
their private and public personae, giving us a little slice of their
lives, and so on.  Despite this, the protagonists are still merely
caricatures: the cocky fighter jock, the wholesome president, the
eccentric Jeff Goldblum intellectual from 'The Fly' and 'Jurassic Park.' 
Thus the audience instinctively becomes disinvolved in their condition;
there is no desire to empathise and thus to become infused with the
tensions and emotions of the characters.  We simply observe their actions,
always very aware that we are watching a film.  Secondly, the film has
little sense of pace: it ambles along, quite content to deliver an effects
shot every so often, while the rest of the time is spent delivering
shallow moralistic melodrama.  The real problem that denies the film any
power or impact is that is simply not awe-inspiring enough.  Any film
which takes something unusual or remarkable as its centrepiece should
retain a sense of wonder from start to finish.  Even those films whose
central themes are invested elsewhere should probably aim to found their
drama on a viewer's enthrallment with event and setting as something
significant.  Take 'Twelve Monkeys,' a film whose ending is set in a very
mundane location, and yet that setting is invested with so much before it,
and is so removed from the ordinary by events that have previously
occurred, that the viewer is absorbed into the whole situation.  Film is
inevitably concerned with an aesthetic projection of something a little
strange (unless one is going to see one's own biopic), and so it is a
shame to render the whole process profane, as in 'Independence Day.'  As a
final illustration, compare 'Independence Day' with 'Star Wars.'  Whereas
the latter performed the same feat as the former (only with vastly greater
force) by having a very spectacular spaceship opening, it retains that
sense of the spectacular until its climax, weaving an epic tale with
wonder upon wonder, until by the end the audience is left positively
overflowing with received sensation.  'Independence Day,' on the other
hand, makes its wonders seem very ordinary, until by the end, one is
simply accepting the inwards of the mother ship, or some fantastic battle
scene, as par-for-the-course.  Given that these are really the film's only
selling point, it seems inevitable that the film will become resigned to
mediocrity, as it possesses no sense of diminuendo or crescendo, merely
jolting from a loud bit to a quiet bit, thus losing any kind of dramatic
contrast.  Unfortunately, the film to which it must be compared is 'Star
Wars,' which reveals 'Independence Day's' epic pretensions as stillborn. 
Another point which seems incongruous: why are the protagonists of
Independence Day not more awed themselves?  It makes sense to merely
accept intergalactic war when it is part of one's life, as in, you guessed
it, 'Star Wars,' but when one is faced with something so profoundly alien,
the human psyche would be much more given to trauma than is portrayed in
'Independence Day.'  Exploration of such could have enormous dramatic
potential: a good delineation of the terror and fear, paranoia and horror
that a hostile alien attack would engender could have made the film much
more successful, but instead the characters merely bumble through, taking
the whole thing very much in their stride, Will Smith at one point
cheerfully bopping an alien on the nose.  Well, damnit, if the characters
aren't gripped by proceedings, then why the hell should I be?
   Unfortunately, the nature of the film and its publicity only
exacerbates these problems.  Having been stunned by the trailer, one sits
through the movie, undistracted by anything else, waiting for the next
effect shot.  That is no way to watch a film, but the whole 'Independence
Day' phenomenon, film included, leaves one with little choice.
   Now, having severely criticised the film, there are a few good points,
as I said earlier.  Pullman, Smith and Goldblum make sympathetic,
watchable leads, and the special effects are, of course, stunning,
unusually so, even in this day and age.  This largely not because of any
particular technical brilliance, though that is present, but instead
because of their amazing visual flair.  Some of the sequences do stand
comparison to 'Return of the Jedi' or 'The Abyss' (the  special edition,
not the vastly inferior original release).  The jet strike scenes' thrill
comes from a real sense of motion, and there are some scenes in which a
ship hovers above ground, while an unholy battle takes place in its
shadow, which are stunning, providing the film's only true moments of real
emotion, sending a genuine awed shiver down the spine.  What a pity, then,
that the special effects director's sense of visual style is so much
better than Emmerich's: the contrast between these battle scenes and the
rest of the film is sometimes really pretty shocking.  And, you'll already
have seen most of these scenes in the trailer.
   As a final point of denigration, the score is truly terrible.  Where it
should be unnoticable, it is intrusive, where it should be ominous or
emotive, it lapses into fanfare.  The film has enough problems without
some of its only good moments being spoiled by some marching brass band.  
   So, like 'Jurassic Park,' it has Jeff Goldblum as that eccentric
intellectual, an awful score, it is dramatically pathetic, and it has
enough in it to make a fantastic trailer.  'Jurassic Park,' at least, was
great cinema, if weak anything else.  'Independence Day,' then, comes
across as something of a poor man's 'Jurassic Park:' an impressive feat of
mediocrity.