From the Archives: Across the Universe
March 20th 2010 20:24
Here's my essay/review of Across the Universe, written on October 8, 2007
Intertextuality and Across the Universe
Julie Taymor's Across the Universe (2007) attempts to be a commentary on the events of the 1960's, specifically the war and treatment of African-Americans, showcased by the songwriting of The Beatles. The result, however, is a disjointed mess that is far too focused on its usage of Beatles songs than it is on plot and character development. The story begins with a montage of songs that happens so fast you nearly get whiplash. We then see two different sets of characters, which we recognize as our two main stars, yet we will not learn their names until at least 30 minutes into the film. In the meantime, there are random references to Beatles songs thrown in as dialogue, such as when an old man commenting on "when I'm 64". Later on, someone states that "She", who turns out to be Prudence (i.e. Dear Prudence) "came in through the bathroom window". Furthermore, all of our characters embody the names of those in various Beatles songs, such as Jude, Sadie, Jo-Jo, Lucy, and Max(i.e. Maxwell's Silver Hammer) and the aforementioned Prudence. There is even a Dr. Robert, played by Bono, and watching him sing "I Am the Walrus" is an extremely overt ego-trip.
Clearly, Taymor's goal was to seamlessly interweave the lyrical majesty of Lennon and McCartney to the events of this crucial era in American History. As many of their songs were social commentaries on the time, the idea is a noble one. However, it falls horribly short and instead of the songs commenting on the events and lives of the characters, most stick out like a sore thumb, feeling terribly awkward and worse, comical. The musical numbers that accompany many of the songs are almost too ridiculous to mention, much less sit through. Take for one example, when a main character must report to the induction center to join the army. As he walks in "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is being sung. As the camera pans up, we realize the words are coming from the 'I Want You' Uncle Sam posters, which have now come to life, their big hands reaching out to this horrified character. After this, the hopeful army recruits are being trained by drill sergeants with wooden faces. The last part of this surrealist montage includes our poor soon-to-be soldiers carrying the Statue of Liberty through a model Vietnam as they all sing, "She's so heaaavvvyyyy".
The surreal and fantastical visuals are done to highlight the musical nature of the film, but Taymor goes too far with her fluorescent colors and fake acid trips, turning out an incredibly uneven film. Instead of setting the tone of the film, these scenes take away from it. In fact, the majority of the film seemed to be merely an excuse to fit in as many Beatles songs, regardless of how they fit the content of the film. Most of the songs are incredibly unnecessary and do nothing to further the plot. Towards the end, our Heroine Lucy sings Blackbird, and it’s hard to ascertain a reason. In one seen, protagonist Jude belts out "Strawberry Fields Forever" while images of smashed strawberries fill the screen in front of a backdrop of images from Vietnam. The strawberries are supposed to symbolize bombs; that much we know, however the entire reason for this scene is not clear. But the most overt example of pointlessness was when the group of friends stumble upon a tent in field in the woods and out jumps Eddie Izzard singing, "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite". Izzard improvises a lot of the song, throwing in his own dialogue as the circus ringleader while CGI images of circus animals dance around him. The scene adds nothing, and like many, seems to be the screenwriters and filmmakers own desire to take some of their favorite songs and put their own spins on them.
As for the plot, or what little there is, it gets overshadowed by the lavish musical numbers. When we finally do get to Vietnam, we don't care. When the Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix-like knockoffs, Sadie and Jo-Jo, fight and breakup, we don't care. Some of the few positives of the film are that the songs do translate well onto cinema and it’s nice to hear them sung, as long as you close your eyes for the most part so that the awkward, clownish montages can be avoided. Also, the young actor who plays Jude (Jim Sturgess) is incredibly charismatic, and he sounds like Lennon when he sings. Sturgess' performance is powerful; if only we cared a little bit more about his character.
But perhaps the biggest problem of the film is the separation of intertext from the world of the characters. Never once are The Beatles actually mentioned by anyone. In fact, neither are Joplin and Hendrix, for that matter. And so when we have two Joplin and Hendrix-like characters who happen to get famous singing Beatles songs, one has to wonder if this is a world in which none of these musical acts existed. If this is the case, it is a fatal flaw. The point of Taymor's film was to show a specific time with fictional characters who can do nothing but sing their hearts out to these timeless songs... yet we have no idea if the Beatles are known to them or if these are supposed to be their own words.
A stark contrast is another film, The Dreamers (2005), which was masterfully handled in its interweaving of film intertextuality. The characters of the Dreamers experience the tumultuous events of France in May 1968 while living through their own film rose-colored glasses. Their passion for French new wave, classic cinema, and auteur cinema, determines their actions. They live their lives like these films until they can no longer escape the reality of what is happening around them. However, the characters are always aware of their source material, which is perfectly mixed into their lives.
By, seemingly, not allowing her characters be aware of the source of their passion, the film cannot be taken seriously. Instead, we have to suspend our disbelief that, in the minds of the characters, they are singing original songs that comment on their lives. Instead of Jude singing "Revolution" when angrily trying to explain to his girlfriend why he won't get involved with the war protests, why couldn't he have said that he didn’t have this in him, he didn’t feel he had anything to fight for, and that maybe he’s no John Lennon after all?
Intertextuality and Across the Universe
Julie Taymor's Across the Universe (2007) attempts to be a commentary on the events of the 1960's, specifically the war and treatment of African-Americans, showcased by the songwriting of The Beatles. The result, however, is a disjointed mess that is far too focused on its usage of Beatles songs than it is on plot and character development. The story begins with a montage of songs that happens so fast you nearly get whiplash. We then see two different sets of characters, which we recognize as our two main stars, yet we will not learn their names until at least 30 minutes into the film. In the meantime, there are random references to Beatles songs thrown in as dialogue, such as when an old man commenting on "when I'm 64". Later on, someone states that "She", who turns out to be Prudence (i.e. Dear Prudence) "came in through the bathroom window". Furthermore, all of our characters embody the names of those in various Beatles songs, such as Jude, Sadie, Jo-Jo, Lucy, and Max(i.e. Maxwell's Silver Hammer) and the aforementioned Prudence. There is even a Dr. Robert, played by Bono, and watching him sing "I Am the Walrus" is an extremely overt ego-trip.
Clearly, Taymor's goal was to seamlessly interweave the lyrical majesty of Lennon and McCartney to the events of this crucial era in American History. As many of their songs were social commentaries on the time, the idea is a noble one. However, it falls horribly short and instead of the songs commenting on the events and lives of the characters, most stick out like a sore thumb, feeling terribly awkward and worse, comical. The musical numbers that accompany many of the songs are almost too ridiculous to mention, much less sit through. Take for one example, when a main character must report to the induction center to join the army. As he walks in "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is being sung. As the camera pans up, we realize the words are coming from the 'I Want You' Uncle Sam posters, which have now come to life, their big hands reaching out to this horrified character. After this, the hopeful army recruits are being trained by drill sergeants with wooden faces. The last part of this surrealist montage includes our poor soon-to-be soldiers carrying the Statue of Liberty through a model Vietnam as they all sing, "She's so heaaavvvyyyy".
The surreal and fantastical visuals are done to highlight the musical nature of the film, but Taymor goes too far with her fluorescent colors and fake acid trips, turning out an incredibly uneven film. Instead of setting the tone of the film, these scenes take away from it. In fact, the majority of the film seemed to be merely an excuse to fit in as many Beatles songs, regardless of how they fit the content of the film. Most of the songs are incredibly unnecessary and do nothing to further the plot. Towards the end, our Heroine Lucy sings Blackbird, and it’s hard to ascertain a reason. In one seen, protagonist Jude belts out "Strawberry Fields Forever" while images of smashed strawberries fill the screen in front of a backdrop of images from Vietnam. The strawberries are supposed to symbolize bombs; that much we know, however the entire reason for this scene is not clear. But the most overt example of pointlessness was when the group of friends stumble upon a tent in field in the woods and out jumps Eddie Izzard singing, "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite". Izzard improvises a lot of the song, throwing in his own dialogue as the circus ringleader while CGI images of circus animals dance around him. The scene adds nothing, and like many, seems to be the screenwriters and filmmakers own desire to take some of their favorite songs and put their own spins on them.
As for the plot, or what little there is, it gets overshadowed by the lavish musical numbers. When we finally do get to Vietnam, we don't care. When the Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix-like knockoffs, Sadie and Jo-Jo, fight and breakup, we don't care. Some of the few positives of the film are that the songs do translate well onto cinema and it’s nice to hear them sung, as long as you close your eyes for the most part so that the awkward, clownish montages can be avoided. Also, the young actor who plays Jude (Jim Sturgess) is incredibly charismatic, and he sounds like Lennon when he sings. Sturgess' performance is powerful; if only we cared a little bit more about his character.
But perhaps the biggest problem of the film is the separation of intertext from the world of the characters. Never once are The Beatles actually mentioned by anyone. In fact, neither are Joplin and Hendrix, for that matter. And so when we have two Joplin and Hendrix-like characters who happen to get famous singing Beatles songs, one has to wonder if this is a world in which none of these musical acts existed. If this is the case, it is a fatal flaw. The point of Taymor's film was to show a specific time with fictional characters who can do nothing but sing their hearts out to these timeless songs... yet we have no idea if the Beatles are known to them or if these are supposed to be their own words.
A stark contrast is another film, The Dreamers (2005), which was masterfully handled in its interweaving of film intertextuality. The characters of the Dreamers experience the tumultuous events of France in May 1968 while living through their own film rose-colored glasses. Their passion for French new wave, classic cinema, and auteur cinema, determines their actions. They live their lives like these films until they can no longer escape the reality of what is happening around them. However, the characters are always aware of their source material, which is perfectly mixed into their lives.
By, seemingly, not allowing her characters be aware of the source of their passion, the film cannot be taken seriously. Instead, we have to suspend our disbelief that, in the minds of the characters, they are singing original songs that comment on their lives. Instead of Jude singing "Revolution" when angrily trying to explain to his girlfriend why he won't get involved with the war protests, why couldn't he have said that he didn’t have this in him, he didn’t feel he had anything to fight for, and that maybe he’s no John Lennon after all?
| 40 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
