WARNING: Contains Spoilers for Both Films Throughout
The issue of the Canadian filmic identity comes up occasionally when both Canada and the U.S. release movies within a short time that share plot similarities with each other. This rare occurrence of border crossing has allowed film analysts the opportunity to examine the cultural differences and identity between Canada and the U.S. through their films. The latest case of this happening was in 1998, when two films, one from each country, were released in the same year that dealt with the ever popular topic of the end of the world. From the U.S., two films were actually released within two months of each other. The one that will be focused on here is Armageddon (U.S.A. 1998). This film is Hollywood excess at its biggest. Produced by superstar producer Jerry Bruckheimer, directed by bad boy commercial filmmaker Michael Bay, and populated by an all star, high testosterone cast lead by Bruce Willis, this film is the textbook definition of a $100 + million dollar blockbuster that Jeanine Basinger hilariously misinterpreted in her obviously biased essay on the film as “a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, colour and shape – and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion.” (1) From Canada, we have Don McKellar’s directorial debut film, Last Night (Canada, 1998). The entire budget of this film probably would have been the catering bill for Armageddon. While the former film is excess taken to new levels, the latter is probably the calmest film in the “disaster” genre. Populated by its own cast of famous Canadians, it follows various people in Toronto during the last six hours of existence and is introspective, dead-pan and has a prevalent sense of cool irony, which has lead Peter Howell of the Toronto Star to describe the film as “the Canadian movie to end all Canadian movies.” On first glance, one would think that these two films, aside from being about the end of the world, have absolutely nothing in common. But upon closer analysis, one can see numerous similarities between the two films and their structures, characters, plot points and aesthetics. The joy is in seeing how each film handles these similarities differently, and how these differences are reflective of their national identities. In this essay, I will be analyzing Armageddon and Last Night in relation to each other and how each film reflects the sensibilities and ideology of their respective countries. I will focus in detail on the plot, character and structure similarities between them and how the two films vastly differ in their executions. I will conclude by explaining how despite the fact that in Last Night the world does indeed end, it is a more satisfying and even transcendent ending, whereas in Armageddon the saving of the planet seems phoney and artificial by noting the use of post-modern irony within Last Night, as opposed to Armageddon’s straight delivery. In analysing the two movies, it is amazing to note the similarities in structure between the two films. Both films open with an overhead shot of the subject matter as a voice-over not only sets up the film, but indicates the overall tone the film will have. In Armageddon, the opening shot is a CGI shot that flies through space, past the moon and focuses on Earth. We then see an asteroid fly past us, hit the Earth and watch as the shockwave cook’s the planet. During all this, the distinctive voice of Charlton Heston gives this narration. “This is the Earth at a time when the dinosaurs roamed a lush and fertile planet. A piece of rock just six miles wide changed all that. It hit with the force of ten thousand nuclear weapons. A trillion tons of dirt and rock hurtled into the atmosphere creating a suffocating blanket of dust the sun was powerless to penetrate for a thousand years. It happened before. It will happen again. It is just a question of when.” In direct contrast, the opening of Last Night has a completely different tone. The first thing we hear is a phone ringing. The first thing we see is a static overhead shot of Patrick (Don McKellar) lying on the floor of his apartment, tying his tie. His body is parallel to the couch and the coffee table. As he ties his tie, pauses, gets up and walks out of frame, this is the voice over, courtesy of the answering machine. “Hi, it’s me. I’m not here. If you’re a friend or someone who’s loved me, I want to thank you for being a part of my life. If it’s you, Mom, I’m coming, I’ll be there, relax, here’s the beep.” The message left behind is spoken by Canadian filmmaking icon, David Cronenberg. “Good afternoon, Mr. Wheeler. I’m calling from the gas company. I hope you’re doing well and spending these final hours in peace with your loved ones. Rest assured that we will make every effort to keep the gas flowing right until the end.”
The opening moments aren’t the only coincidences in the film. Both films follow the traditional beats of a “disaster” film and contain the stock images and characters that are part of the genre. Both movies have control rooms, desolate streets, a “town crier “character who announces prophetically how much time is left, a character who is determined to have as much sex as possible, an Asian woman, a level of homoeroticism, crowd shots, music that ties into the narrative and a big screen kiss that ends the film. But where they separate is their treatment of each of these clichés. Armageddon treats these in the typical fashion, but in a more amped up way. The control room at Huston is constantly busy and filled with people and is the centre of activity on the planet. Every single line and action is done with urgency. Even the shattering of a full mug of coffee is filmed fetishistically. The streets of the U.S. cities are empty, save for a person holding the requisite “The End is Near” sign. The “town crier” in the movie shows up early to say his one line (“We have 18 days before it hits Earth!!!”), as does the Asian gal (“I want to go shopping.”) The horndog character Rockhound (Steve Buscemi) is one of the central figures in the main cast. The soundtrack is populated by a lot of hard rock songs (Aerosmith is the prevalent band heard). And the only time we see any crowd shots in the movie is at the end when we see them cheering over the destruction of the asteroid. As one looks closer at the film, one can see the subtle and yet blatant hyper-masculinity and xenophobic Americana as it emerges. The film has a fanatic boys club mentality to it in its depiction of women as well as the blatant and yet oblivious amount of homoeroticism. Neil Bather’s points out this characteristic in his essay “Big Rocks, Big Bangs, Big Bucks – The Spectacle of Evil in the Popular Cinema of Jerry Bruckheimer”. “As a sub-genre, Bruckheimer films are strongly masculine. They accentuate the strength of male heroes and villains, and feature the kinds of rapid editing styles, snappy dialogue and violent imagery that are directly targeted at primarily male audiences. Female characters are commonly reduced to caricatures, subservient to the needs of the male protagonist or the plot.” (39). In the film, the main female character, Grace (Liv Tyler), is the daughter of the main protagonist whose sole purpose is to wait in the control room and look worried at the monitors. Every other female in the movie is a succubus (The astronomer who discovers the asteroid names it after his wife Dottie because “She’s a vicious, life sucking bitch from which there is no escape.”), a stripper or an ex. Even the sole female member of the team that goes up is basically a white Uhura who does nothing but try to establish radio contact. As for the all star male cast, the movie takes every chance it can to show off their masculinity. One telling example is the oil eruption early on in the film which is both obvious and coded in its connotations. By showcasing these alpha males, a sense of homoeroticism comes into play. One moment that is both blatant and clueless about this is Bear’s comment on how Grace considers the group of roughnecks to be “a bunch of daddies.”
Thus, as Katherine Monk points out in her book Weird Sex and Snow Shoes and other Canadian Film Phenomena, “we see that really it’s all about the American way and the perpetuation of American values.” Which as Keane puts it is this. “Go to work, save the world, get married, populate the species.” Thus, when the final shot of Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler kissing shows up at the end, it becomes clear that this movie is more like American propaganda than mass entertainment. Last Night, on the other hand, takes these characteristics and clichés of Armageddon and completely turns them around. Instead of being a giant film about the fate of mankind in the hands of a group, this is a solemn film about individuals trying to make a human connection and have a moment of meaning before the end. It repeats many of the same images and characters that Armageddon has, but subverts them. The big control room in the movie is completely empty, save for a single bored employee who ends up letting the gas stop flowing because she’s off getting laid. The “town crier” that runs throughout the movie pointlessly doing a countdown seems to be in on the joke, whereas the “town crier” in Armageddon IS the joke. The same could be also said about Craig (Callum Keith Rennie). Andre Loiselle says in his essay “The Radically Moderate Canadian – Don McKellar’s Cinematic Persona”, “with his boyish charm, polite depravity, and sexual goofiness, he is very much the classic incarnation of Canadian cinema’s archetypal Clown.” His politeness and humility towards each of his partners (“I’ll do my best.”) can be seen as a rebuke to the walking erection Rockhound is in the former film. Whereas the American people hide in bomb shelters that won’t help protect them, the Canadians embrace the end of the world and treat is as if it were the ultimate New Year’s Eve party. The homoeroticism that was both blatant and oblivious in the former film is actually addressed here in the final scene between Patrick and Craig. And the Asian woman that was painfully caricatured in Armageddon is upgraded to the female lead in this film as Sandra (Sandra Oh), who along with Patrick finally embraces her humanity right at the very end. As Marc Glassman’s says in his essay “Last Night: In the Year of the Don”, [“She carries the emotional weight of the film,” acknowledges McKellar. “Her relationship with Patrick…who comes into her life to help her, gives Last Night its power and resonance.”] (18) It’s interesting to note that, despite being pregnant, she is the one who all throughout the film is determined to fulfil her suicide pact with her husband with or without him. When Patrick asks her if she doesn’t want to see the end of the world for herself, she replies “It’ll mean more coming from you.” In an ironic fashion that could only be found in Canada, she is the angel of death who happens to be the beating heart of the film. One scene in particular sticks out in a way that can be interpreted as a commentary on the violent American ideology that the film is critical of. It is the scene before the last hour in the film in which Duncan, the David Cronenberg character is sitting alone eating ice cream while waiting for Sandra to return. He hears a gunshot and steps outside to investigate. A young man then walks by carrying a shotgun with his girlfriend in tow. The guy notices him and loads his gun, trying to intimidate the older man. Duncan just turns around and heads back into his house, but the guy storms into the house, telling Duncan to look at him. As the guy points his gun and walks toward him, Duncan walks backward into the shadows, never once losing his cool. All the while, he says the following. “I’m not afraid of you. I’m not afraid of what you can do. You’re the one whose afraid.” From a metaphorical angle, we see that Duncan (aka. Canada) has accepted his
It is in the final moments of Last Night that we realize the biggest difference between Armageddon and Last Night. Despite its pumped up intensity and thrill seeking effects, the former movie is essentially a film about the denial of death. Aside from a tiny scene in which Will Patton’s character realizes his mortality and tries to reconcile with his estranged family, a moment that Charles P. Mitchell describes in his book A Guide to Apocalyptic Cinema as “the most heartfelt moment in the picture, being perfectly understated yet dramatically sincere.” (15), the entire film is essentially proof of America’s denial of the fact that the human race will one day become extinct. By showing these hyper-masculine men figuratively draped in the American flag blowing up a figuratively feminized evil, it perpetuates the collective masses denial of our own mortality. As Monk explains, “In the Hollywood vision, death is something that must – and can – be conquered. Sheer lunacy, of course, but this is crucial to understanding the American ethos as packaged by Tinseltown: Deny reality at all costs, and if you can’t straight-out deny it, then at least reinvent it to suit your own agenda.” (230-231) The latter movie, ironically, ends up being an affirmation of life. By finally releasing themselves from their personal protective barriers, the characters discover the immense gift of life at the moment of their demise. Thus, the kiss that Patrick and Sandra share at the end of the film has a transcendent quality that ironically makes the film a triumph of the human spirit. Katherine Monk confirms this in her writings about the film. “They come to understand the true beauty of being alive and being able to love each other. Their physical lives may come to an end, but their humanity survives. For me, that translates into a far larger type of hero: a hero who needn’t destroy something to affirm himself, but someone who can quietly move into the next plane with a reservoir of courage, embracing it as the last chapter in a beautifully human existence.” (232-233) In her concluding paragraph about Canadian film and its depiction of death, she says the following. “Where other filmic traditions attempt to hide its presence behind nubile starlets and collagen injections, the Canadian film tradition stares it straight in the face – it even kisses it on the lips. What we get out of this close relationship to the absolute emptiness is nothing less than a more complete understanding of who we are, as we come to feel, and explore, all dimensions of what we are not. It’s a bit of a backward affirmation, but it suit’s our “negative” psyche. For a doughnut without a hole is just a pastry, and life without death has no meaning.” (233) As Brenda Longfellow claims in her essay, “Globalization and National Identity in Canadian Film”, “What is curious and perhaps anomalous in Canada, however, is that against this backdrop of increasing ‘global’ rationalization of our economy and culture, issues of national identity have lost none of their resonance and seductions (and not only for dyed in the wool cultural nationalists.)” (4) This comes across in our examination of both countries films. While the Americans address their issues in a bull headed fashion that show off their denial of the basic truths of human nature, we Canadians can look at ourselves in a critical fashion and gain a understanding of ourselves through our humour and humility. In conclusion, by examining these two highly opposite yet eerily similar films from here and abroad, one can get a better understanding of our national identity and what makes a Canadian film Canadian, especially in relation to our south of the border neighbours. Luke Annand |
|||
The question as to what makes a Canadian film distinctly Canadian has always been an issue for Canadian filmmakers, particularly in regards to their American counterparts. Despite the progress the Canadian film industry has made in getting their films seen by their own people, they still have to compete with the Americans in getting their films noticed. This competition with the U.S., as well as their limited resources, has created what Linda Hutcheon has described as a distinctly Canadian type of post-modernism. In her introduction to her book “The Canadian Post-Modern”, she states the following. “For Fogel the Canadian lack of formal experimentation and ideological engagement that he associates with meta fiction (pp.15, 18) is the result of the fact that Canadian writers are unencumbered by the ‘ideological baggage’ of American novelists.” (2) This trait is probably one of the most prevalent characteristics of Canadian cinema, specifically in the last thirty years. In his essay, “Bordwell Considered – Cognitivism, Colonialism and Canadian Cinematic Culture”, Jose Arroyo comments on how this post-modern tendency comes almost as an instinct in Canadian cinema. “Like postmodernism, Canada is fragmented, pluralistic, heterogeneous, and diverse. Some of the effects of living in Canada are also similar to those of postmodernism, namely, as the perennial national questioning of ‘where is here?’ and ‘who are we?’ indicate – loss of meaning and de-centered subjectivity.” (78).
The images and voice over in both cases convey the overall direction of both films. For Armageddon, it’ll be a hard-core, glossy action flick with everything taken to the extreme, with an emphasis on the group. For Last Night, it’ll be a cool, ironic, sarcastic and sombre piece that’ll emphasize the individual as he or she face the end of the world. While some have criticized Last Night for its flippant tone, it’ll become apparent that it’s this sarcastic spirit that makes the film what it is. As John Caughie puts it in his essay “Playing at Being American: Games and Tactics”, “…if sarcasm is indeed the lowest form of wit, it may be because it’s the last resort of the powerless.” (44) 
If that wasn’t enough, the xenophobia on display is as equally obvious. Starting with the New York cabbies off handed comment of “Saddam Insane is bombing us”, Paris and an Asian harbour are completely wiped off the map and the Chinese investors of the oil operation are completely ignored during a tour of the oil drilling facilities. The depiction of the Russians is brought up in Stephen Keane’s book Disaster Movies – The Cinema of Catastrophe. “A measure of the post-Cold War compromise of the film, in fact, is that Russia is represented by the dilapidated MIR space station, useful for refuelling but then becomes a hazardous wreck and, similarly, leaving the group with a lunatic cosmonaut who redeems himself at the end.” (92) It is solely up to the Americans to represents man’s last hope in saving the world which is brought up twice. First, as Keane points out, “when the President goes on the deliver his uplifting crisis speech over a
The end of Last Night is a true sight to behold. McKellar makes an interesting stylistic choice in that all the shots starting from the shot after Patrick and Sandra go off to hit the can and make final phone calls to the very last shot are either overhead shots, dolly’s that move in a circular motion or a combination of the two. We see that the ice cream Duncan was eating has melted away, and that Duncan’s body is on the floor in a pool of blood (a fitting end for a character played by David Cronenberg). We see the crowd of people, Patrick’s sister and her boyfriend included, cheering away. We see Craig and Donna the gas company employee pause in their lovemaking before continuing. We then see Patrick’s record player playing the Pete Seeger album that was referenced earlier. As we hear “Guantanamara” over the soundtrack, we see that Sandra and Patrick are sitting across from each other, with guns at each other’s heads. She keeps telling him to wait till the last second before he pulls the trigger. During this, we cut to the various people we’ve seen throughout the film to see where they will be when it ends. We keep cutting back to Patrick and Sandra as they start to quiver with emotion. During a close up shot on Sandra as a single tear come down her face which then moves to Patrick’s face, the following lyric is spoken. “I am a truthful man from the land of the palm trees. And before dying, I want to share these poems of my soul…The streams of the mountain, pleases me more than the sea.” It is in this bit of mise en scene that reveals what everyone in the movie wants and has been working towards. These people want to experience a true human connection before their eventual demise. So when they discard the guns and embrace in a kiss as the light envelops them, the moment has a transcendent feel as we feel the character’s embrace.
Post new comment