by Jaimie Grijalba
First, I am extremely glad that I’ve had the chance to write about the films of Richard Kelly for the science fiction countdown, and I hope that this doesn’t come as a surprise when I say that his three features are in this list and they’ll come up as we go up on the list. So, without much else to add, I give you the first of my three collaborations to Wonders in the Dark for this countdown.
People can get furious when they try to come to terms with something they can’t fully understand, and sometimes that derives into violence and overall nastiness, something that is a matter of moral discussion, especially when we’re speaking about the nature of human nature when contrasted to the danger of the unknown. What I just said could be applied to both the protagonists of the last directed film of Richard Kelly (please, make more) and to the vitriolic and almost incomprehensible negative reactions that some viewers had when confronted with this work. It is, ultimately, its opaque and almost hidden continuity of events that make it fascinating and at the same time subject of the most polarizing views that I had the chance to enjoy reading at the time of its release.
But honestly, who cares about the reaction of audiences back then in its release, when all that matters now is how I saw it then and how I think of it now. If there wasn’t already another movie where I plan to use this statement, I’d probably say that this is one of the most underrated films of the last decade, mainly because it was taken for granted due to everything that seemed to surround it. It was a Richard Matheson adaptation, an adaptation that some had already seen in an episode of the 1980’s Twilight Zone, with the acting of Richard Marsden and Cameron Diaz, among many others, and marketed as if it were some sort of thriller about the idea behind what happened with a box that had a button and a question behind it: would you press it if it gave you a million dollars but it killed a man you didn’t know?
Some were upset at the fact that it took the story of Matheson and added a bunch of context and continuation that “ruined” the original intent of it, which was about the idea of how truly you know someone, something that is even referenced as the protagonists of the film ponder upon pressing the button. In a beautiful dialogued sequence they ask themselves about the many scenarios that could happen, and they mention the ones that happen in both the short story and the TV adaptation, and then go on and press the button anyway, thus moving beyond the adaptations and the short story and entering a pure Richard Kelly territory… but is that really bad? I posit that here the director has given us his most prized narrative, the one that he feels the closest to, and he chose to add a Matheson story in the front of it just to lure us in.
In a way, what ‘Button, Button’, the original Matheson story, gives us in relation to the film is a frame of reference to give the audience a moral quandary that’ll have its weight all across its plot. It’s not really about the button, the money or even the fact that they might be the culprits behind someone else’s death (they’re really not), as those facts are forgotten rapidly and we’re just moving ahead into the pure science fiction territory that gives this movie its more audacious visuals and precise elements that make it a memorable watch. Who cares about The Box itself, when what we’re really seeing is some sort of macabre experiment, we’re seeing a family under the danger of sudden ruination and given the opportunity to watch it, as if they were surrounded by a glass cage, studied and poked at to see if they react in one way or another.
The film constantly hints at powerful beings, superiors that direct the actions of the character played by Frank Langella, and who one supposes are aliens that try to see if the human race is worth saving, and thus carrying out experiments. That could be the most accepted interpretation, and some, thus, laugh it off, but I posit that the powerful beings that can control minds and actions, as well as create enormous portals and objects, are indeed humans that have reached way into the future and have come back to project an idea of morality that should be applied to everyone, as if a way to teach an older generation about the wave of what’s coming. Maybe the only way that they have people to obey them in an amicable manner is through the act of violence (that they never soil their hands with) and threats that make Arlington Steward the puppet that they need to control the future. What makes me think they’re from the future? Small hints about maps featuring names that in the period piece would be impossible to know, and small objects featured in certain scenes. Too much attention to details, I guess.
Like I was saying before, and sorry if I’m rambling, the film constructs itself as a personal narrative of Richard Kelly, who projects his childhood into the main characters, donning them with the features and back stories of his parents (crooked leg and job at the NASA included) and what he lived in the years were I assume he was traumatized by the idea that there was something out there that might’ve been bigger… call it God, call it aliens, call it superior beings… he represents himself through the kid that the main couple has, who is discovering all about these things and he rests his mind on a quote by Arthur C. Clarke about the nature of science and magic. No wonder that he is the one that is subjected to the torture of blindness and deafness and is used as a token for the apparition of a sacrifice… it’s no wonder that he is the one that is being saved, as he is the innocent, just as mankind is, and a messianic death is all that takes the kid to be salvaged from a valley of darkness. It’s in the discovery that we’re more than what we just are that we stop being kids, and thus the film also becomes one about growing up, but not beyond beliefs as much as because of them.
I’m having a hard time trying to see if I’m making any sense here, but I hope that you do see the film in new eyes, if you’ve seen it before, or that you’re curious enough to check it out. You have to see beyond what’s on the surface, beyond what seems to be acts of random and just see what’s happening on the foreground and where we can’t see. It’s also a really beautiful film, with the most underrated cinematography and editing, one that could have any of its frames in my favorites of all time. A film that takes place in the 70’s, but that it feels from today, and it points towards the future of humanity.
I’m a bit surprised this film managed to land in the Top 100. Never cared for the ending and found the narrative episodic. Still, it has developed a cult reputation, and I think it is seen now in a better light that before. You do a great job explaining what lies beneath the surface.
I remember the original Twilight Zone episode but somehow never managed to see the movie. Thanks to your enticing account of it, it’s now on order . . .
Well this is one I had passed by thinking it to be something I needn’t concern myself with. But the allusion to a higher power as portrayed in 2001: A Space Odyssey is a central concern of mine. Great job, Jaime, you’ve piqued my interest.
The film also harkens back to an original episode of the Outer Limits, where a box with an eye hole sets off an arc of horror and death – “Don’t Open Till Doomsday.” I do believe “The Box” will improve with age, and in fact for many has already moved in that direction. Your passionate account Jaimie is worthy of the highest commendation.
Thanks for all the comments! I hope that those who have promised to watch it, will and come back to this post.
I have never heard of this movie until now. Looks like some feel it’s a mixed bag, however not having seen it myself I can’t say for sure.
Very pleased to see this on here. An underrated, and unfairly ignored picture.
For the record, I agree with the author as to the identity of the ‘superior beings’. At the very least, I’m certain they’re human.
Surprised to hear that Southland Tales might have made the list by the way. I found it an unwieldy, if admirable failure personally, but I very much look forward to the article on that one when it comes. Perhaps I’ll have my mind changed.
Exciting…
I’ve now watched this movie, Jaimie, and must renew my thanks to you for putting me on to it: it’s one of the most thought-provoking SF movies I’ve seen in a long while. You’re absolutely right that whichever geniuses in the Sales Dept thought it should be marketed as a skiffy thriller were absolute dunderheads[*]; it’s extremely cerebral — which is exactly what the best of SF should be. I’m surprised it features so low in this countdown — maybe too many people, like ignoramus moi, simply missed it.
I’m planning to rewatch it a couple or more times over the next few months, because I don’t think I’ve got everything out of it the first time.
Minor correction: It’s James Marsden, not Richard Marsden.
=====
* From the back of the DVD comes this vomitworthy stuff:
“Somebody pushing your buttons?” a woman asks. From filmmaker Richard Kelly . . . comes a gripping sci-fi mystery thriller that pushes ’em right.
As an aside concerning the term “sci-fi” (wot I, as a hidebound old fart, profoundly loathe), the article about the usage in the 3rd edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is worth a read.
For these kind of comments I write what I write. Thanks so much!
Oh I did think the soundtrack — all those portentous crescendoing chords — was a bit of a pain in the ass from time to time.