But as I was watching it, I thought how guarded it felt -- which reminded me how guarded almost all movies feel these days.
On a recent podcast I was listening to -- I think it was The Next Picture Show -- one of the podcasters was talking about how today's movies are almost all sexless. They didn't extrapolate on why, but if I had to put forth a theory, it would be an overreaction to political correctness. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm on board for most of what political correctness has brought into the world. But like most good liberal intentions, sometimes it goes too far.
Don't want to be accused of showing too much female skin? Don't want to be accused to being too heteronormative? Don't want any worries about the male gaze, even going in the opposite direction and showing more male skin than female skin?
The easiest way to do these things is just show no sex at all. Now granted, sex is never going to be a big part of any Top Gun movie, especially since Tom Cruise, I'm sure, would like to avoid having to kiss any women as often as he can. But even by today's standards, I was amused at how chaste this movie is. It is implied, I think, that Maverick and Jennifer Connelly's character, Charlie, sleep together, as he's got to put some clothes back on and escape from the house before her teenage daughter can see that he's been there. But the actual scenes of intimacy between them are shot in this cheesy, gauzy fashion where they are more likely to be seen laughing together than pressing their faces against each other.
This unwillingness to commit to something controversial extends to the movie's villains. The nuclear reactor they have to take out in the film's climax belongs only to a "rogue state," and good luck trying to identify them based only on the mountainous terrain. No attempt is made to suggest where the fighter pilots are going, in what sea their aircraft carrier waits, or anything like this.
I'm reminded that the original Top Gun didn't name the enemy either -- you'd assume it was the Russians because all villains were Russian back then -- but at least at that time, you didn't get the sense that the decision not to name the villain was based only on the prospect of selling the movie to as many markets as possible. That's certainly a key factor today. Plus, you know, political correctness.
The result is that Top Gun: Maverick really doesn't have any teeth. It takes a stab at a few hot button topics -- like replacing aircraft piloted by humans with drone warfare -- but that topic is dropped before anyone can even accuse the movie of taking a side or a stance. I suppose the side it does take is that of the U.S. military, which is pretty safe -- it courts conservative viewers without really offending liberal ones.
Perhaps because I was never a huge fan of the original -- I think I saw it only once -- Maverick didn't have much impact on me in the end. I enjoyed it in the moment and didn't think about it once after leaving the theater, except as fodder for this blog post. Its lack of teeth certainly has something to do wit that.
But hey, it's nice to feel like we are really past the impact of the pandemic on entertainment now that the longest COVID-delayed film has finally come out.
No comments:
Post a Comment