The Mist, Jumper, and Shooting an Elephant in Burma with George Orwell

You might remember that I read Stephen King's 'The Mist' earlier this year and expressed dismay with the ambiguous ending. Tonight the Mrs. and I watched the movie version.

It was unusually faithful to the original novella for much of the movie but had a few twists and turns of its own, mostly for the best. It got rid of the out of character sexual tryst between the (married) male lead a woman he just met (as his wife was dying/dead).  It kept the military as the 'cause' of the Mist, but removed some objectionable comments  that King, as a child of the '60's, wrote about the soldiers and their death. And of course it elaborated on the ending.

Oh, about that ending . . wow. What a disturbingly dark, harsh way to end a film. I'm truly at a loss for words. It was a logical and organic extrapolation of what happened at the close of the book, but you lose your breath and walk away . . . disturbed.

Huh. 'Organic' and 'extrapolation' in the same sentence. Aint that a peach.

Two thumbs up, but don't see it if you're depressed when you walk in the door. You're not going to feel better after this one.

* * *  *

The Mist spoiler: this morning I thought back and realized the end might have a deeper meaning. Mrs. Carmody spoke of needing to sacrifice the boy, like Abraham and Isaac, or Jesus and his Father, to end the horror. His Dad kills (sacrifices) him and moments later we learn the invasion is vanquished.

And let's not forget Carmody dying with arms outstretched, like someone else we know.

The book and movie both take care to paint Carmody as a kook, and rightfully so, but in retrospect the ending *could* be construed to validate her preaching.

* * * *

I also saw Jumper lately.

 

A mindless but enjoyable romp with only about a 1000 different plot holes. As a matter of fact on IMDB.com there's a hilarious thread listing the top 100 flaws in the movie.

A sampling: the fact that a public restroom is located right next to the bank vault, enabling the robbery; that 'jumpers' are mortal and can be killed with knives and guns but not when exposed to thousands of volts of electricity; that he's allowed to fly overseas with a backpack full of cash that no one finds suspicious, and that his girlfriend, who has never left her hometown, apparently has a passport at home because she flies to Italy with him on the spur of the moment.

After seeing the movie I went and picked up a copy of the novel that the movie was (loosely) based on.

It's a completely different experience, with different characters, plot lines, and philosophies. Enjoyable and recommended, with a few caveats.

One, author Steven Gould uses the novel as a sounding board against American foreign policy circa 1987, the time the book was written.

To paraphrase: Israelis are equal to terrorists because they 'shoot Palestinian children', the Beirut bombing of the U.S. Marines was reasonable because they were 'occupying their homeland', the idea of encouraging the Iran-Iraq war was abhorrent, etc.. Oh, and don't forget the half page devoted to reminding the American lead that 'not all Muslims' are terrorists, because, you know, all Americans are ignorant asses that think that way.

He's entitled to his opinions, but I thought it was tossed in as extraneous and preachy dialogue.

Which leads to flaw number two: the main character suffers a horrendous loss at the hands of a terrorist. He resolves to track them down and bring them to justice, and at the same time rescue hostages from their murderous captors. While doing so he refuses to even contribute to the accidental death of a terrorist. For instance he interrupts the (life or death) rescue of dozens of innocents to toss floatation devices to a gun wielding madman struggling in the water.

Not that I don't think it noble and all, in a GI Joe 'shoot 'em but no one gets hurt' way, but it strikes me as very unrealistic, especially given the loss that establishes the plot line.

[note: there is one scene made horrific by the events of 9/11. He takes a terrorist to the World Trade Center and jumps off with him, then teleports them both away before impact. The irony of using that horrifying fall as a punishment for a terrorist sticks with you]

Third, his girlfriend is haughty and full of psycho-babble. It was like (Robert B. Parker's) Susan Silverman was tossed in for good measure.

Good grief, I have enough of her in the Spenser novels.

 Still, a good fine read.

* * * *

World Traveler brought me a copy of George Orwell's Shooting an Elephant. It's a tidy little essay of his own experiences as a solider in Burma and how he came to loathe the very empire he served.

It was obviously a life-changing event for him, and carried all sorts of political and philosophical baggage. But what struck me deeply was the ease and simplicity of Orwell's prose, and the raw honesty in which he expresses his opinions, regardless of whether they fit neatly into the notions of right, left, or center.

With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down . . ., upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts.

The quote above should really be read in context, and I apologize for shortchanging my readers and Orwell. Go ahead and read the (short) essay. You'll come away with new respect for what Orwell could do with a blank sheet of paper.

Tags: Jumper, The Mist, George Orwell