After the middling reaction that greeted “The Hunger,” Tony Scott went back to making commercials. In an alternate universe, the story probably ends there. But here in this reality, super-producer Jerry Bruckheimer – hot off the success of “Flashdance” and “Beverly Hills Cop” – was impressed by a Saab 900 commercial Scott had directed, along with his first film's sense of cool. He tapped Scott to direct his next project, a little movie based on a California Magazine article about Naval Air Station Miramar in San Diego. Of course, the rest is history. “Top Gun” would go on to become the highest grossing film of 1986, shooting Tom Cruise and Tony Scott's careers into the stratosphere. Yet, separated from its hey-day by almost forty years, how does “Top Gun” hold up in 2021?
Pete Mitchell – call sign “Maverick” – is a fighter jet pilot stationed aboard the USS Enterprise. After an incident where he and his Radar Intercept Officer Nick Bradshaw – call sign “Goose” – humiliates a pair of Russian MiG-28 jets, and rescues a fellow pilot having a nervous breakdown, both Maverick and Goose are sent to TOPGUN. That would be the Navy's prestigious training academy for fighter pilots. Maverick's reckless behavior wins him the scorn of his instructors but he's too talented at flying to turn away. Soon, Maverick has also charmed Charlie Blackwood, a civilian instructor at the school. He forms a rivalry with another pilot, known as Iceman. When a horrible tragedy happens, Maverick questions whether being a pilot is for him. Fate intervenes when the graduates are called into action.
Here's the thing about “Top Gun:” It's about a cocky asshole. Maverick is unfailingly self-centered. Oh, sure, he saves a fellow pilot after he starts to freak out in the first scene. Yet this is after he locks-on to a Russian pilot and does a fancy inverted flight just to flip the guy off. When at the bar, trying to pick up women, Maverick is way-too-confident hitting on girls. He flashes that big, white smile, as if to say “Ain't I a stinker?” after every one of his stunts. Maverick always acts like he's going to win. And the movie seems to support that too. No matter how many times he does something obnoxiously showy – like flying too close to the control tower – he's forgiven by his superiors. He's shipped off to TOPGUN because, despite directly disobeying orders, his natural talent for flying impressed his commanding officer so much. Even after another pilot dies on his watch, supporting characters go out of their way to assure him it wasn't his fault.
It's only fair that the film's main character spends the nearly entire run time acting like a cocky douche bag. “Top Gun” is a movie all about macho posturing. All the characters are identified primarily by their call signs, ridiculous nicknames like “Hollywood” or “Wolfman.” Maverick and Iceman's rivalry are based entirely around both of them assuming they are the best. They intimidate and shit-talk each other in petty, childish ways. This attitude extends even to the military conflict ostensibly central to the story. “Top Gun” is essentially a war movie without a war. What are all these jet pilots preparing for? A future war with the Russians, even though we all know that would end with nuclear missiles falling out of the sky? There's no active conflict going on throughout the film, making it seem like all of these guys are training just cause. When an actual dog fight does occur, it's because a U.S. ship has drifted into Russian territory. Which is not a very dramatic or righteous or justified reason to blow people away.
“Top Gun” is all about the illusion of looking tough, of seeming bad-ass, of acting like a perfect ace that can't loose. Its hero is preternaturally gifted, born with excellent flying abilities, and he basically coast on that throughout the rest of the movie. This makes “Top Gun” the perfect propaganda of the Reagan era. America was fighting a war that was largely about being tougher than the other guy. The country felt entitled to do whatever necessary to undermine the Soviets, because it was that convinced of its own superiority. “Top Gun” was made with the assistance of the Navy, who even suggested rewrites to the script. It was all about making the air force look cool, seductive and, above everything else, victorious. Yet this approach can't help but secretly reflect the hollow, toxic, pathetically fragile attitudes that motivated the conflicts of the day.
Of course, there's a good reason why the love story between Maverick and the girl lacks any conviction whatsoever. As famously observed by no less an authority on cinema than Quentin Tarantino, “Top Gun” is a movie awash with homoerotic tension. All the actually meaningful connections in the film are between men. Whether that be Maverick's closer-than-brothers bond with Goose or his rivalry with Iceman. When the latter snaps his jaws at Maverick, as some sort of macho show of strength, it produces more sparks than any of his scenes with Charlie. When the jets are buzzing around each other, there's repeatedly references to having "someone on your tail" or "coming up behind you." While the camera zeroes in on the jet's phallic tips and missiles. A commanding officer, constantly incensed with Maverick and his boys, seems obsessed with butts. Especially with “getting” butts.
All of this is aside from the constant scenes of glistening male nudity. The dudes stand around in the locker room, wearing only towels around their waist, bickering/flirting. Tom Cruise stands at a sink in his tighty-whities, while one of his bosses pats him on the shoulder. And, naturally, there's the totally gratuitous volleyball sequence, two band of guys just deciding to take their shirts off and play with some balls. In each scene, the guys' skins are wet with moisture shining in the warm sunshine. Eighties action movies were often so hyper-focused on machismo that they often ended up being rift with gay subtext. Even if it lacks the bulging pectorals of a Schwarzenegger or a Stallone, “Top Gun” still manages to be hilariously homoerotic.
Despite so much of “Top Gun” being dumb or jingoistic, I still don't hate this movie. That's because Tony Scott directs the ever-loving hell out of it. He trades in the opulent goth rock video style of “The Hunger” for sun-baked, sea-salt-in-the-air, endless summer vibes. The opening scene of jets preparing to take off on the deck of a battleship, the orange sun behind them, is utterly gorgeous. It's such a good image that the movie repeats it several time, sometimes subbing in Tom Cruise on his motorcycle for the massive engines of American capitalistic destruction. Just to remove any doubt that Scott designed this movie's visuals, “Top Gun” also includes a blue-on-black love scene with curtains billowing in the background. The scene when Tom Cruise's tongue, in silhouette, darts over Kelly McGinnis' mouth is the only moment there's any sexual chemistry between those two. Strictly because Scott knows how to make anything look sexy and cool.
“Top Gun” was also Tony Scott's first entry into the action genre, something that seemed inevitable considering how sleek his images are. Scott was giving the task of making guys sitting in cockpits look exciting. He succeeds, by spinning the camera around them or flipping them upside down. Absolutely anything to make these stationary men in their masks and helmets seem like they are moving. These moments are cut with real footage of real jets zipping through the sky, in-between the blanket of white clouds below and the blue sky above. Yeah, it's pretty fast-paced and dynamic. Yet the best moments are still when Scott can create striking imagery, like the shadow of the jets zooming across the desert sands. Or the melodrama of Goose's death, set against another sunset in slow-motion. It looks great and it's fun to watch.
One year after appearing in brother Ridley's “Legend,” Tom Cruise would be directed by Tony Scott here. Naturally, the movie's blockbuster success is what birthed Tom Cruise's career as we know it. And it's so weird too, as Cruise seems almost inhuman here. He has the perfect grin, the perfect smug asshole attitude. It's all so calculated, as if Cruise was a robot doing his best to appear human. This uncanny quality has followed the star his entire career and, obviously, the majority of people don't seem to mind it. It might've worked in “Top Gun's” favor, if the film leaned into Maverick's macho bravado being a mask he wears over a wounded soul. Yet either Cruise is too self-conscious a performer, or the script too unwilling to humanize its hero, to let Maverick be vulnerable even when discussing the character's sad past. Instead, he becomes stoic and dark when the topic comes up.
Kelly McGinnis, stuck in a poorly written role, does the best she can. She's never convincing when spitting the totally unconvincing dialogue yet she still manages a certain fire and energy in the movie's better moments. Anthony Edwards is funny and warm as Goose, even if he's destined to die. Meg Ryan, a few years before becoming a household name herself, is also surprisingly likable as Goose's wife. Iceman is almost the exact same character as Maverick, a psychotically self-involved and cocky prick, but Kilmer is a better actor than Cruise. So this is off-putting in an effective and interesting way. I also always get a kick out of seeing character actors like Michael Ironside and James Tolken show up, giving way more wit and color than necessary to totally one-dimensional roles of hard-ass authority figures.
No comments:
Post a Comment