Let me tell you about a movie I just saw which you will quite possibly hate, yet I absolutely loved. It’s called “Knowing,” it was released by Summit Entertainment this past March to scathing reviews and decent if unspectacular box office. Only one critic stood up for it: Roger Ebert, brazenly giving it a four star rating and calling it one of the best science fiction films he’d ever seen. In so doing, ol’ Roger fulfilled the only exceptionally noble purpose of a film critic: the championing and defending of good art. On the strength of his enthusiasm alone, and perhaps respect for director Alex Proyas, I eventually found myself picking up the Blu-Ray from Blockbuster. When it was over, Corelyn sat next to me on the couch with a frown on her face: “I liked it,” she intoned, “But I didn’t love it. It had some problems.” I had no idea what she was talking about, and still don’t. I thought “Knowing” was terrific.
I feel strongly that the plot should not be discussed, so if you don’t know anything about it I will deliberately avoid remedying that. It’s enough to say the flick stars Nicolas Cage as an MIT professor who discovers something very strange in a time capsule buried for fifty years, something that has implications in the past and future. From there, the film spins off into an absurd yet intoxicating science fiction thriller. On the street level, when it comes to everyday logic, this thing could be seen as comically unrealistic. But of course, that is not the level “Knowing” wants to play on. It wants to engage the bird’s eye view, to see something of almost limitless scope, to encounter the most basic and sophisticated philosophical questions of existence. It is also a profoundly religious film, and not always in an uplifting sense, although what the story actually thinks of religion is…difficult to say. In about the last quarter of its running time, “Knowing” develops an incredible amount of chutzpah, presenting stunning imagery and a profound sense of definite meaning, yet elaborating on neither. You, the audience, will be required to make some decisions about what you saw. It will not be handed to you. I am often intensely distressed by how much American audiences resent such a cinematic experience: we are accustomed to handy snippets of dialogue a la “Oh, that explains blank. It must have been blank all along, which would also prove that blank was really blank and…” When a movie abandons chattering heads and starts singing with images, I notice a lot of people get uncomfortable. They seem skeptical that concrete meaning could really exist without it being spelled out. Such an attitude will make you hate “Knowing.”
But a lot of other things will, too. Although a remarkable science fiction thriller, Proyas’ flick is unquestionably flawed. It has moments of intense corniness, some strains on basic logic, and an annoying fondness on the part of the leads for bringing their helpless children along to places where they can be in harm’s way. Although many movies are guilty of this, some are better at getting you to forgive them, and “Knowing” doesn’t even try. It’s too busy being its weird self to bother with you, and if you’re not on board then go away. Even though I concede these missteps, I have a difficult time accepting that they should have been done differently. Something about the overall tone of the piece is enhanced by the goofiness. Or maybe it’s not, but it’s like a person: it is what it is, you either accept it or you don’t, and imagining some hypothetical version with one or two things removed is pointless. I recommend watching it the way you’d partake of a much older film. I mean, are you really going to tell me “Citizen Kane” isn’t pretentious? Or that “Goodfellas” doesn’t have shocking continuity errors? Or that “Psycho” does not have one of the worst, most dunder-headed, over-explanatory endings in history? These are technically drawbacks, I suppose, but changing them feels…wrong, especially after you’ve watched George Lucas fumble clumsily around in his beloved “Star Wars.” Such is the case with much of “Knowing.” The flaws I would change are the obviously green-screened driving shots, the slightly sloppy effects during the (SPOILER) plane crash (END SPOILER), and some moments of Nic Cage’s performance. These problems felt unnatural to the piece, out of step, as if they were hanging off it incorrectly. I was disappointed to see them.
Even as I write this, I can already sense that some of you are going to hate this thing, it’s so easy to. I don’t even really blame you, it has that “bad movie” feel to it sometimes. But for any of you out there who love science fiction, who really love it, I think your disposition will meet warmly with what Alex Proyas has done here. The whole movie has interesting elements, but the ending is simply marvelous, perhaps the best recent example of the final act saving the whole piece, and the best thing about it is how little it’s explained. For those of us with a functional grasp of the first chapter of Ezekiel, there are some delicious hints dropped our way, but everything is left up to us for interpretation. I thrill at movies that do this, I can’t stand getting preachy explanations when I’d rather wonder with my eyes wide.
In choosing this movie to defend, Roger Ebert has adopted an incredibly noble endeavor. His colleagues laugh and spit poison, as did many American film goers, but he has refused to back down even an inch. If you head over to his blog, you will discover hundreds upon hundreds of forum posters engaged in rigorous debate about free will, ethics, and what makes a good movie, all centered around this picture. I think Roger is quite proud of that. Many great sci fi movies were not accepted at first, and I’d like to think that in a few decades “Knowing” will be remembered more fairly. Until then, Ebert and I will be gathered around this poor thing, fending off its attackers with bloodied, rhetorical fists. This is a weird, special movie, and I am profoundly grateful to the man who guided me to it.
PS: Ebert’s Review, Eloquent and Dead-on: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090318/REVIEWS/903189991/1023
Ebert’s Blog: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/a_roll_of_whose_dice.html
Ebert wonders aloud why no one else likes “Knowing”: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090322/COMMENTARY/903229997
0 Responses to “Well, Well, Well”