Life was good!
Here's a bad idea: schmaltzy Jim Carrey. As everyone
knows -- because he's been so vocal about it -- that
Carrey is looking to expand his domain, to be
understood as more than "just" a gifted and wildly
popular comedian (who makes $20 million a pop) and to
be respected as a dramatic actor. His efforts to make
this happen are well-known: The Truman Show
more or less successfully combined his comic
odd-ballity with a poignant storyline so that everyone
was pleased (except the Oscar voters, a slight that
Carrey made sure everyone knew made him unhappy), and
Man In The Moon was a more outrageous and quite
admirable gamble, Jim Carrey channeling Andy Kaufman.
Distressingly, whatever edge he had working in Milos
Forman's film is nowhere in sight in Frank Darabont's
The Majestic.
Set in the early 1950s (The African Queen is
in theaters, so we're talking, say, 1951), The
Majestic is a feel-good flick in the old-fashioned
sense. Taking up a terrible historical topic -- the
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)
hearings, blacklisting, and general red-scaring -- the
film finds a wholly wonderful silver lining in it,
namely, that the witch-hunters are wrong-headed
individuals who are, in the end, outnumbered by those
noble souls who understand in their hearts why young
men go to war. The reason, of course, is defensive
only -- to stand up for freedom, democracy, and the
Constitution, not to mention the right to make all
kinds of money on any kind of product. Yay team.
Such nostalgic self-love is, of course, popular at the
moment, and The Majestic milks the sentiment in
the most reductive way: movies are good and
witch-hunts are bad. Ignoring systemic problems (say,
how U.S. legal and political structures continue to
allow for misuses resembling the HUAC hearings or
Japanese internment camps), the film focuses instead
on individuals, for they can be blamed, punished, and
most importantly, fixed.
As The Majestic opens, Peter Appleton (Carrey)
makes his living writing B pictures with titles like
Sand Pirates of the Sahara (the little bit we
see of this picture, starring the irrepressible Bruce
Campbell as a dashing tomb raider, looks like a lot of
fun). Peter's not thrilled with the unreasonable
changes he's asked to make in his "serious" scripts,
indicated in the smart opening scene, where the camera
never moves from his consternated face while
studio-types' voices decide how to "fix" his coal
mining drama with a dog who saves the day. "That's
amazing," he tells the unseen suits, grinning
hollowly. So now you know: he knows the dog is a bad
idea, but is willing to play along, until he learns
that moral lesson that's just down the road. In other
words, Peter has a trajectory as corny as any with a
day-saving dog.
In case you miss this point in the first scene, the
movie nails down Peter's shallowness with your first
glimpse of is foofy actor girlfriend, Sandy (Amanda
Detmer). The deck is stacked high against her: her
painfully unironic Marilyn-clone wig announces that
Peter will soon be finding true love elsewhere. For
the moment, though, he's desperate to feel blissfully
ignorant: "We were young," he rhapsodizes in
voice-over, "We were in love and we were working in
the pictures. Life was good!"
This good life collapses when Peter is called for HUAC
questioning, because he once attended a Communist
meeting in college, but only in an effort, he
protests, "to impress a girl." Suddenly blacklisted
and dumped by Sandy, he gets drunk, drives his car off
a bridge, hits his head, and wakes up washed ashore in
the entirely retro town of Lawson, CA, so quaint that
it has a single main street, single diner, and single
movie theater. Folks here are trusting, generous, and
grieving the loss of 62 sons in WWII; in short,
they're inclined to hope that Peter is actually the
fellow he looks like, Luke Trimble, MIA in Europe 9
and a half years before. His headstone and glass case
full of medals occupy a special place in the town's
war memorial graveyard, and even though
Peter-now-called-Luke has not a trace of memory about
any of this, he's willing to play along.
This situation is exceptionally trippy, to be sure.
But in the movies, you know, life is
perpetually good, even when it looks bad for a minute.
Since Peter has conveniently lost his memory during
the car wreck, he's really only being nice. And how
can he resist? Luke's own father, Harry (Martin
Landau), makes the initial ID, and Luke's girlfriend
Adele (Laurie Holden) rewards him with a walk along
the beach and a few choice secrets about their past
relationship (for instance, the cure for her hiccups
is a sweet kiss from her dashing beau). It so happens
that Harry owns the local movie theater, the Majestic,
which has gone to seed since the war.
Peter-now-called-Luke's "return" inspires everyone --
including the Doc (David Ogden Stiers), mayor (Jeffrey
DeMunn), sheriff (Brent Briscoe), pawnshop owner Stan
(James Whitmore), aging candy-girl Irene (Susan
Willis), and aging usher Emmett (Gerry Black) -- to
pitch in to restore the theater to its old glory, to
return the town itself to its former contentment. They
even agree to haul a war memorial out of the Town Hall
basement, a memorial that has previously been a
painful reminder of loss, rather than courageous
sacrifice. Spinning such deaths so they might build
"national character" rather than devastate survivor
populations is certainly the federal government's
function -- how else would it convince anyone to go to
war, for heaven's sake? -- but The Majestic's
representation of this process is rudimentary, at
best.
First, however you read the grandiose, mostly
low-angle shots showing the statue's resurrection, it
is clearly the reopening the theater that marks the
town's emotional rehabilitation: the whole town turns
out for the first night, and the ticket-buying is a
hugely meaningful ritual: you can pay cash money to
save your soul. This combines elements of other famous
movies about movies, ranging from back-patting
exercises (Preston Sturges' Sullivan's Travels,
Darabont's own The Green Mile) to exegeses on
the pathological industry (Billy Wilder's Sunset
Boulevard, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive).
The Majestic simultaneously chides the bad
business practices (Peter and the craven studio guys
only want to make money) and celebrates the good
product (Peter-now-called-Luke saves Lawson's spirit
with his passion for the movies; and note that Peter's
own bill-filler, Sand Pirates of the Sahara,
thrills the moviegoers in Lawson).
Second, the stock characters here recall a fabricated
history. No doubt, these are precisely the stock
characters the film means to invoke, but they only
revisit the same limited, whitewashed worldview that
even the most wonderful Frank Capra movies presented.
At this point in time, especially at this point
in time, such nostalgia is more maddening (and
potentially dangerous) than it is soul-nourishing,
especially if you're not of a Caucasian persuasion.
The Majestic's investment in the theater as a
site of rejuvenated faith certainly suits the current
U.S. mood: whatever would the nation do if there
weren't bunches of movies, of most every ilk,
available to consume during the holiday season?
Peter-now-called-Luke is a second coming in more ways
than one. Yet, it's a vision of a fabricated,
cleaned-up past that leaves out a few too many
individuals.
This isn't to say that the film doesn’t include a
couple of stock characters who nonetheless stand out
from the crowd. Emmett, for example, is the only black
character in sight; but this status apparently (and
predictably) grants him a special authenticating
authority (Emmett is a slighter version of what Spike
Lee calls the "Magical Negro," a character more
prominent in The Green Mile; Michael Clarke
Duncan's John Coffey goes so far as to sacrifice
himself to the ultrawhite angels Fred Astaire and
Ginger Rogers). Indeed, when the wise, humble, and
completely altruistic Emmett approves
Peter-now-called-Luke, well, Peter himself starts to
believe he must be the guy.
And so, no matter who Peter-now-called-Luke might
really be, he's serving a purpose here -- he has
become Lawson's own son, even if he's not. It's worth
noting that the only townsperson who openly questions
his identity is a "fellow" vet named Bob (Karl Bury);
it's hardly coincidence that Bob has a hook for one
hand, and so recalls the Oscar-winning performance by
real WWII veteran Harold Russell in William Wyler's
The Best Years of Our Lives. While Bob is
understandably grumpy about his own circumstances,
Peter-now-called-Luke offers smug advice, that Bob
stop being so gloomy and start romancing diner-owner
Mabel (Catherine Dent), who is in turn, obviously in
love with Bob. That Peter-now-called-Luke actually has
no war experience is obviously irrelevant to his
"understanding" of Bob's rage. Peter, after all, is a
screenwriter: imagining himself into someone else's
shoes is what he does best. Eventually, he has to
imagine himself into a whole other sensibility, brave
and true, like Luke.
The mechanism for this transformation is television,
and this may be the film's most incisive point of all,
that movies in 1951 were on their way out as a way to
shape national consciousness and belief, and tv was
well on its way in. Surely, the HUAC hearings are
among the most "embarrassing" of U.S. historical
moments, and The Majestic shows that at least
some of this mess took place on television, a
technology that would forever alter the public sphere.
But as you watch shots of stricken viewers intercut
with little black-and-white images of those shameful
proceedings, you might wonder about all the other,
less noble souls who were also watching, and cheering
on the Congressmen, or maybe the folks who were too
poor to own tvs, or those whose lives such
witch-hunting didn't affect because they were already
so horrifically abused for being black or Japanese.
And so, at its most reductive, The Majestic is
about the enduring U.S. mythology that all viewers --
of tv and movies -- have the same response to what
they see. The Majestic lets you believe that
the system works, and that when someone earnestly
resists a body like HUAC, redemption ensues. More
complexly, the film also suggests that what you
believe in (systems included, I suppose) needn't be
true, so long as it sustains you during times of
duress. This is a timely notion, but it's a
potentially troubling one, if those beliefs become
self-righteous and self-justifying, to the point of
ignorance.