"Infinite Jest: Reviews, Articles,
and Miscellany"
F/X PORN
David Foster Wallace
Waterstone's
Magazine
Winter/Spring 1998
What's the difference between a Hollywood special-effects blockbuster like
"Terminator 2" and a hard-core porn film? Very little, claims
novelist, essayist and footnote fetishist David Foster Wallace.
1990s moviegoers who have sat clutching their heads in both awe and
disappointment at movies like "Twister" and "Volcano"
and "The Lost World" can thank James Cameron's "Terminator
2: Judgment Day" for inaugurating what's become this decade's special
new genre of big-budget film: Special Effects Porn. "Porn" because,
if you substitute F/X for intercourse, the parallels between the two genres
become so obvious they're eerie. Just like hard-core cheapies, movies like
"Terminator 2" and "Jurassic Park" aren't really "movies"
in the standard sense at all. What they really are is half a dozen or so
isolated, spectacular scenes -- scenes comprising maybe twenty or thirty
minutes of riveting, sensuous payoff -- strung together via another sixty
to ninety minutes of flat, dead, and often hilariously insipid narrative.
"T2," one of the highest-grossing
movies in history, opened six years ago. Think of the scenes we all still
remember. That incredible chase and explosion in the L.A. sluiceway and
then the liquid metal T-1000 Terminator walking out of the explosion's flames
and morphing [1] seamlessly into his
Martin-Milner-as-Possessed-by-Hannibal-Lecter corporeal form. The T-1000
rising hideously up out of that checkerboard floor, the T-1000 melting headfirst
through the windshield of that helicopter, the T-1000 freezing in liquid
nitrogen and then collapsing fractally apart. These were truly spectacular
images, and they represented exponential advances in digital F/X technology.
But there were at most maybe eight of these incredible sequences, and they
were the movie's heart and point; the rest of "T2" is empty and
derivative, pure mimetic polycelluloid.
It's not that "T2" is totally plotless
or embarrassing -- and it does, admittedly, stand head and shoulders above
most of the F/X Porn blockbusters that have followed it. It's rather that
"T2" as a dramatic narrative is slick and cliche and calculating
and in sum an appalling betrayal of 1984's "The Terminator." "T1,"
which was James Cameron's first feature film and had a modest budget and
was one of the two best U.S. action movies of the entire 1980s [2],
was a dark, breathlessly kinetic, near-brilliant piece of metaphysical Ludditism.
Recall that it's A.D. 2027 and that there's been a nuclear holocaust in
1997 and that chip-driven machines now rule, and "Skynet," the
archonic _diabolus_ ex_ machina_, develops a limited kind of time-travel
technology and dispatches the now classically cyborgian A. Schwarzenegger
back to 1984's Los Angeles to find and terminate one Sarah Connor, the mother-to-be
of the future leader of the human "Resistance," one John Connor
[3]; and that apparently the Resistance
itself somehow gets one-time-only access to Skynet's time-travel technology
and sends back to the same space-time coordinates a Resistance officer,
the ever-sweaty but extremely tough and resourceful Kyle Reese, to try desperately
to protect Ms. Sarah Connor from the Terminator's prophylactic advances
[4], and so on. It is, yes, true that
Cameron's Skynet is basically Kubrick's HAL, and that most of "T1"'s
time-travel paradoxes are reworkings of some fairly standard Bradbury-era
science fiction themes, but "The Terminator" still has a whole
lot to recommend it. There's the inspired casting of the malevolently cyborgian
Schwarzenegger as the malevolently cyborgian Terminator, the role that made
Ahnode a superstar and for which he was utterly and totally perfect (e.g.
even his goofy 16-r.p.m. Austrian accent added a perfect little robofascist
tinge to the Terminator's dialogue [5]).
There's the first of Cameron's two great action heroines [6]
in Sarah Connor, as whom the limpid-eyed and lethal-lipped Linda Hamilton
also turns in the only great performance of her career. There is the dense,
greasy, marvelously machinelike look of "The Terminator"'s mechanized
F/X [7]; there are the noirish lighting
and Dexedrine pace that compensate ingeniously for the low budget and manage
to establish a mood that is both exhilarating and claustrophobic [8].
Plus "T1"'s story had at its center a marvelous "Appointment-in-Samarra"-like
irony of fate: we discover in the course of the film that Kyle Reese is
actually John Connor's father [9],
and thus that if Skynet hadn't built its nebulous time machine and sent
back the Terminator, Reese wouldn't have been back here in '84, either,
to impregnate Sarah C. This also entails that meanwhile, up in A.D. 2027,
John Connor has had to send the man he knows is his father on a mission
that J.C. knows will result in both that man's death and his (i.e. J.C.'s)
own birth. The whole ironic mess is simultaneously Freudian and Testamental
and is just extraordinarily cool for a low-budget action movie.
Its big-budget sequel adds only one ironic
paradox to "The Terminator"'s mix: in "T2," we learn
that the "radically advanced chip" [10]
on which Skynet's CPU is (will be) based actually came (comes) from the
denuded and hydraulically pressed skull of "T1"'s defunct Terminator...meaning
that Skynet's attempts to alter the flow of history bring about not only
John Connor's birth but Skynet's own, as well. All "T2"'s other
important ironies and paradoxes, however, are unfortunately unintentional
and generic and kind of sad.
Note, for example, the fact that "Terminator 2: Judgment Day,"
a movie about the disastrous consequences of humans relying too heavily
on computer technology, was itself unprecedently computer-dependent. George
Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic, subcontracted by Cameron to do "T2"'s
special effects, had to quadruple the size of its computer graphics department
for the T-1000 sequences, sequences which also required digital-imaging
specialists from around the world, thirty-six state-of-the-art Silicon Graphics
computers, and terabytes of specially invented software programs for seamless
morphing, realistic motion, digital "body socks," background-plate
compatibility, congruence of lighting and grain, etc. And there is no question
that all the lab work paid off: in 1991, "Terminator 2"'s special
effects were the most spectacular and real-looking anybody had ever seen.
They were also the most expensive.
"T2" is thus also the first and best
instance of a paradoxical law that appears to hold true for the entire F/X
Porn genre. It is called the Inverse Cost and Quality Law, and it states
very simply that the larger a movie's budget is, the shittier that movie
is going to be. The case of "T2" shows that much of the ICQL's
force derives from simple financial logic. A film that would cost hundreds
of millions of dollars to make is going to get financial backing if and
only if its investors can be maximally -- _maximally_ -- sure that at the
very least they will get their hundreds of millions of dollars back [11]
-- i.e. a megabudget movie must not fail (and "failure" here means
anything less than a runaway box-office hit) and must thus adhere to certain
reliable formulae that have been shown by precedent to maximally ensure
a runaway hit. One of the most reliable of these formulae involves casting
a superstar who is "bankable" (i.e. whose recent track record
of films shows a high ROI). The studio backing for "T2'''s wildly sophisticated
and digital F/X therefore depends on Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger agreeing
to reprise his Terminator role. Now the ironies start to stack, though,
because it turns out that Schwarzenegger -- or perhaps more accurately "Schwarzenegger,
Inc.," or "Ahnodyne" -- has decided that playing any more
malevolent cyborgs would compromise the Leading Man image his elite and
bankable record of ROI entails. He will do the film only if "T2"'s
script is somehow engineered to make the Terminator the Good Guy. Not only
is this vain and stupid and shockingly ungrateful [12],
it is also common popular knowledge, duly reported in both the trade and
the popular entertainment media before "T2" even goes into production.
There's consequently a weird postmodern tension to the way we watch the
film; we're aware of what the bankable star's demands were, and we're also
aware of how much the movie cost and how important bankable stars are to
a big-budget movie; and so one of the few things that keeps us on the edge
of our seats during the movie is our suspense about whether James Cameron
can possibly weave a plausible, non-cheesy narrative that meets Schwarzenegger's
career needs without betraying "T1"'s precedent.
Cameron does not succeed, at least not in avoiding
heavy cheese. Recall the premise he settles on for "T2": that
Skynet once again uses its (apparently not all that limited) time-travel
device, this time to send a far more advanced liquid metal T-1000 Terminator
back to 1990s L.A., this time to kill the ten-year-old John Connor (played
by the extremely annoying Edward Furlong [13],
whose voice keeps cracking pubescently and who's just clearly older than
ten), and that the intrepid human Resistance has somehow captured, subdued,
and "reprogrammed" an old Schwarzenegger-model Terminator -- resetting
its CPU's switch from TERMINATE to PROTECT, apparently [14]
-- and then has somehow once again gotten one-time access to Skynet's time-travel
technology [15] and sent the Schwarzenegger
Terminator back to protect young J.C. from the T-1000's infanticidal advances.
[16]
Cameron's premise is financially canny and artistically dismal: it permits
"Terminator 2"'s narrative to clank along on the rails of all
manner of mass-market formulae. There is, for example, no quicker or easier
ingress to the audience's heart than to present an innocent child in danger,
and of course protecting an innocent child from danger is heroism at its
most generic. Cameron's premise also permits the emotional center of "T2"
to consist of the child and the Terminator "bonding," which in
turn allows for all manner of familiar and reliable devices. Thus it is
that "T2" offers us cliche explorations of stuff like the conflicts
between Emotion and Logic (territory already mined to exhaustion by "Star
Trek") and between Human and Machine (turf that's been worked in everything
from "Lost in Space" to "Blade Runner" to "Robocop"),
as well as exploiting the good old Alien - or - Robot - Learns - About -
Human - Customs - and - Psychology - From - Sarcastic - and/or - Precocious
- but - Basically - Goodhearted - Human - with - Whom - It - Bonds formula
(q.q.v. here "My Favorite Martian" and "E.T." and "Starman"
and "The Brother From Another Planet" and "Harry and the
Hendersons" and "Alf" and ad almost infinitum). Thus it is
that the 85% of "T2" that is not mind-blowing digital F/X sequences
subjects us to dialogue like: "Vhy do you cry?" and "Cool!
My own Terminator!" and "Can you not be such a dork all the time?"
and "This is intense!" and "Haven't you learned that you
can't just go around killing people?" and "It's OK, Mom, he's
here to help" and "I know now vhy you cry, but it's somesing I
can never do"; plus to that hideous ending where Schwarzenegger gives
John a cyborgian hug and then voluntarily immerses himself in molten steel
to protect humanity from his neural net CPU, raising that Fonziesque thumb
as he sinks below the surface [17],
and the two Connor hug and grieve, and then poor old Linda Hamilton -- whose
role in "T2" requires her not only to look like she's been doing
nothing but Nautilus for the last several years but also to keep snarling
and baring her teeth and saying stuff like "Don't fuck with me!"
and "Men like you know nothing about really creating something!"
and acting half-crazed with paramilitary stress, stretching Hamilton way
beyond her thespian capacities and resulting in what seems more than anything
like a parody of Faye Dunaway in "Mommy Dearest" -- has to give
us that gooey "I face the future with hope, because if a Terminator
can learn the value of human life, maybe we can, too" voiceover at
the very end.
The point is that head-clutchingly insipid stuff like this puts an ever
heavier burden of importance on "T2"'s digital effects, which
now must be stunning enough to distract us from the formulaic void at the
story's center, which in turn means that even more money and directional
attention must be lavished on the film's F/X. This sort of cycle is symptomatic
of the insidious three-part loop that characterizes Special Effects Porn
--
ONE: Astounding digital dinosaur / tornado / volcano / Terminator effects
that consume almost all the director's creative attention and require massive
financial commitment on the part of the studio;
TWO: A consequent need for guaranteed megabuck ROI, which entails the formulaic
elements and easy sentiment that will assure mass appeal (plus will translate
easily into other languages and cultures, for those important foreign sales...);
THREE: A director -- often one who's shown great talent in earlier, less
expensive films -- who is now so consumed with realizing his spectacular
digital vision, and so dependent on the studio's money to bring the F/X
off, that he has neither the leverage nor the energy to fight for more interesting
or original plots / themes / characters.
-- and thus yields the two most important corollary formulations of the
Inverse Cost and Quality Law:
(ICQL(a)) The more lavish and spectacular a movie's special effects, the
shittier that movie is going to be in all non-F/X respects. For obvious
supporting examples of ICQL (a), see lines 1-2 of this article and/or also
"Jurassic Park," "Independent Day," "Forrest Gump,"
etc.
(ICQL (b)) There is no quicker or more efficient way to kill what is interesting
and original about an interesting, original young director than to give
that director a huge budget and lavish F/X resources. The number of supporting
examples of ICQL (b) is sobering. Have a look, e.g., at the difference between
Rodriguez's "El Mariachi" and his "From Dusk to Dawn,"
between DeBont's "Speed" and "Twister," between Gilliam's
"Brazil" and "Twelve Monkeys," between Bigelow's "Near
Dark" and "Strange Days." Or chart Cameron's industry rise
and artistic decline from "T1" and "Aliens" through
"T2" and "The Abyss" to -- dear Lord -- "True Lies."
U.S. entertainment media report that Cameron's new "Titanic,"
currently in American release, is (once again) the most expensive and technically
ambitious film of all time. Doubtless, Britons have been pricing trenchcoats
and lubricants in anticipation of its arrival in the UK.
FOOTNOTES
[1] (Actually defined in the film as "mimetic
polyalloy," whatever that's supposed to mean.) [back]
[2] The 1980s other B.U.S.A.M. was Cameron's second feature, the 1986 "Aliens,"
also modestly budgeted, also both hair-raising and deeply intelligent. [back]
[3] (Whose initials, for a prophesied saviour of humanity, are not particularly
subtle.) [back]
[4] The fact that what Skynet is attempting is in effect a retroactive abortion,
together with the fact that "terminate a pregnancy" is a pretty
well-known euphemism, led the female I first saw the movie with in 1984
to claim, over coffee and pie afterwards, that "The Terminator"
was actually one long pro-choice allegory, which I said I thought was not
w/o merit but maybe a bit too simplistic to do the movie real justice, which
led to kind of an unpleasant row. [back]
[5] Consider, for example, the now famous "I'll be back" line
took on a level of ominous historical resonance when uttered by an unstoppable
killing machine with a _German_ accent. This was chilling and brilliant
commercial postmodernism at its best; but it is also what made "Terminator
2"'s in-joke of having Ahnode repeat the line in a good-guy context
is so disappointing. [back]
[6] It is a complete mystery why feminist film scholars haven't paid more
attention to Cameron and his early collaborator Gale Ann Hurd. "The
Terminator" and "Aliens" were both violent action films with
tough, competent female protagonists (incredibly rare) whose toughness and
competence in no way diminish their "femininity" (even more rare,
unheard of), a femininity that is rooted (along with both films' thematics)
in notions of maternity rather than just sexuality. For example, compare
Cameron's Ellen Ripley with the panty-and-tank-top Ripley of Scott's "Alien."
In fact it was flat-out criminal that Sigourney Weaver didn't win the '86
Oscar for her lead in Cameron's "Aliens." Marlee Matlin indeed.
No male lead in the history of U.S. action films even approaches Weaver's
second Ripley for emotional depth and sheer balls -- she makes Stallone,
Willis, et. al. look muddled and ill. [back]
[7] (There is a ponderous, marvelous built-looking
quality (complete with ferrous clanks and/or pneumatic hisses) that -- oddly
enough -- at roughly the same time also distinguishes the special effects
of Gilliam's "Brazil" and Paul Verhoeven's "Robocop."
This was not cool only because the effects were themselves cool, but also
because here were three talented young tech-minded directors who rejected
the airy, hygenic look of Spielberg's and Lucas's F/X. The grimy density
and preponderance of metal in Cameron's effects suggested that he was looking
all the way back to Méliès and Lang for visual inspiration.)
[back]
[8] (Cameron would raise the use of light and pace to near-perfection in
"Aliens," where just six alien-suited stuntmen and ingenious quick-cut
editing resulted in some of the most terrifying Teeming Rapacious Horde
scenes of all time. (By the way, sorry to be going on and on about "Aliens"
and "The Terminator." It's just that they're great, great, commercial
cinema, and nobody talks about them enough, and they're a big reason why
"T2" was such a tragic and insidious development not only for
90s films but for James Cameron, whose first two films had genius in them.))
[back]
[9] (So actually I guess it would be more like "Luke Skywalker's Appointment
in Samarra" -- nobody said this was Art-Cinema or anything.) [back]
[10] (Viz. a "neutral net processor" based on an "uncooled
superconductor," which I grieve to report is a conceit ripped off from
Douglas Trumbull's 1983 "Brainstorm.") [back]
[11] The industry term for getting your money back plus that little bit
of extra that makes investing in a movie a decent investment is ROI, which
is short for Return on Investment. [back]
[12] Because Schwarzenegger -- compared to
whom Chuck Norris is Olivier -- is not an actor or even a performer. He
is a body, a form -- the closest thing to an actual machine in the history
of the S.A.G. Ahnode's elite bankable status in 1991 was due entirely to
the fact that James Cameron had had the genius to understand Schwarzenegger's
essential bionism and to cast him in "T1." [back]
[13] It augurs ill for both Furlong and Cameron that within minutes of John
Connor's introduction in the film we're rooting vigorously for him to be
Terminated. [back]
[14] A complex and interesting scene where John and Sarah actually open
up the Terminator's head and remove Ahnode's CPU and do some further reprogramming
-- a scene where we learn a lot more about neural net processors and Terminative
anatomy, and where Sarah is strung out and has kind of an understandable
anti-Terminator prejudice and wants to smash the CPU while she can, and
where John asserts his nascent command presence and basically orders her
not to -- was cut from the movie's final version. Cameron's professed rational
for cutting the scene was that the middle of the movie "dragged"
and that the scene was too complex: "I could account for the Terminator's
behavior changes much more simply." I submit that the Cameron of "T1"
and "Aliens" wouldn't have talked this way. But another big-budget
formula for ensuring ROI is that things must be made as simple for the audiences
as possible; plot and character implausibilities are to be handled through
distraction rather than resolved through explanation. [back]
[15] (Around which the security must be shockingly lax.) [back]
[16] That's the movie's main plot, but let's
observe here that one of "T2'''s subplots actually echoes Cameron's
Schwarzenegger dilemma and creates a kind of weird meta-cinematic irony.
Whereas "T1" had argued for a certain kind of metaphysical passivity
(i.e., fate is unavoidable, and Skynet's attempts to alter history serve
only bring it about.) "Terminator 2"'s metaphysics are more active.
In "T2," the Connors take a page from Skynet's book and try to
head off the foreordained nuclear holocaust, first by trying to kill Skynet's
inventor and then by destroying Cyberdyne's labs and the 1st Terminator's
CPU (though why John Connor spends half the movie carrying the deadly CPU
chip around in his pocket instead of just throwing it under the first available
steamroller remains unclear and irksome). The point here is that the protagonists'
attempts to revise the "script" of history in "T2" parallel
the director's having to muck around with "T2"'s own script in
order for Schwarzenegger to be in the movie. Multivalent ironies like this
-- which require that film audiences know all kinds of behind-the-scenes
stuff from watching Entertainment Tonight and reading Premiere magazine
-- are not commercial postmodernism at it's finest. [back]
[17] (His hair doesn't quite catch on fire in the molten steel, though,
which provokes intriguing speculation on what it's supposed to be made of.)
[back]
[The author of the novel "Infinite Jest," David Foster Wallace
has been called by The Guardian's James Wood "a superb comedian of
culture." His new book, "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do
Again," is a collection of sharp, playful and humorous essays that
touch on everything from David Lynch to the equivocal relationship between
novelists and television. Full of astonishing verbal dexterity, impish wit
and off-the-wall analysis, the is fresh, funny and hugely entertaining.
"A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again" is published in paperback
by Abacus on 5 February at £6.99]