Top Gun: Maverick (Joseph Kosinski, 2022)

[ford]

I like how this film continued with the original’s precedent of negating people of color by having an Asian-American woman in the squad and not giving her a single line. She’s clearly visible in multiple scenes.

Struggling to think of any pilot in this film who has any degree of characterization whatsoever other than Maverick, Rooster and Hangman.

[tenia]

I like how this film continued with the original’s precedent of negating people of color by having an Asian-American woman in the squad and not giving her a single line. She’s clearly visible in multiple scenes.

Struggling to think of any pilot in this film who has any degree of characterization whatsoever other than Maverick, Rooster and Hangman.

Pretty much.
Though even my parents told me to have a particular look at the main black character in the movie because it's that laughable, which takes some doing as it usually flies by them. Like, by a lot.

But that's indeed because he's just part of all those secondary characters that are glorified extras.

[Maltic]

Pretty much.
Though even my parents told me to have a particular look at the main black character in the movie because it's that laughable, which takes some doing as it usually flies by them. Like, by a lot.

Ironic!

[knives]

You all just wait until I post my enthusiastic response to Elvis!

Did I not post my own love letter to Elvis? In short it makes me question every negative thing I’ve ever said about Luhrmann.

As to this film, I loved it. The text is as gross as people are saying, but I’m surprised the meta-text hasn’t been spoken about more in this bread as that is where the heart seems to be for me. This is Cruise making a film about the unbearable lightness of being Tom Cruise.

[therewillbeblus]

I really want to understand those two impressions, as they sound interesting, but I'm afraid I don't get what you're saying or defending in either case

[knives]

The text is the jingoistic battle of how best to kill people. I found that gross.

The meta text is bit harder to summarize. What fascinates me in the film qis how Cruise is grappling with his own mortality. It’s not just that one day he will die, but he seems afraid, maybe the only fear real life Chris Traeger has, is that his death is the death of the actor as popular artist. Of course we’ll still have our Cate Blanchetts, but an actor who is an artist around explosions? That’s something unknown. The film makes me wonder how Cruise reacts to the line of on and off brand Hemsworths floating aimlessly around action movies making a minimal impact. How can a man now in his 60s ensure that everyone working on every movie matters?

This is an entirely meta-appreciation of the film and the film obviously works beyond that, but it is he meta level where Cruise embodies the Hawksian ideal that the movie achieves a greatness. There’s this need to turn great everyone around him regardless of perspective. Even his collaborators he wants to elevate whether old friends like McQuarrie and Kosinski or down to the krafts people I will never know the name of. Cruise is afraid of a lack of greatness.

[therewillbeblus]

I like that idea, and it's a view I share about Cruise - in terms of his perceived and objectively-evidenced responsibility and merits, as well as what his death will mean for movies (I'm of the mind that he's the last true action-based movie star, not just in terms of genre but commitment, and his death will mark a death of part of cinema). I'm not a stranger to reaching in interpretations of films, but I'm unconvinced that's an actual meta-text rather than something subjectively brought to it, not that it matters. Interesting thoughts

[knives]

To be fair, I’m not the first to talk about this and it seems like something at least McQuarrie was actively considering. Just look at the forum’s favorite critic’s take.

[therewillbeblus]

I could believe McQuarrie's contributions to the script making that attempt, though I think it works in friction with the rest of the ensemble's motives and interests. Maybe I'll watch it again sometime and see what you did

[Mr Sausage]

(I'm of the mind that he's the last true action-based movie star, not just in terms of genre but commitment, and his death will mark a death of part of cinema).

Keanu Reeves?

[knives]

That friction may be so, but Cruise so overpowers everything, including the action, on screen that for me the rest was irrelevant. The exception was Kilmer’s cameo where Cruise calmed down and the film gave us a moment where two old pros practicing their craft in respect of one another.

Edit: Reeves is a great example, but I think it’s telling that, for the genre, he’s so small and personal in the roles he chooses. There’s a quiet thoughtfulness to Reeves. I don’t see Cruise doing John Wick and likewise Reeves doing the Mission: Impossible films.

[therewillbeblus]

(I'm of the mind that he's the last true action-based movie star, not just in terms of genre but commitment, and his death will mark a death of part of cinema).

Keanu Reeves?

The difference to me is that, while Keanu Reeves is certainly committed, he doesn't seem to take upon the kind of pressure as a leader in these contexts, nor does he inflate the value of these projects or his role within them as something monumental connected with "greatness" of character. He appears more humble, more comfortable identifying as part of an ensemble, and more laid-back in temperament, placing the value of the work as strong but keeping it right-sized, with more serenity and lower ambitions and a greater attention to being a good person and attentive peer to his castmates. Tom Cruise might emit a level of calm as his wildly self-actualized personality approaches these projects, but the relentless pursuit of ante-upping greatness, including doing all his own stunts and learning how to fly or accelerating his skills in piloting in order to be the greatness of the character on screen feels singular to him. That doesn't mean that action movies will die with Tom Cruise, but I carefully chose my words as "action-based" meaning the actions he's willing to take to commit so intensely to push the limits of the medium. I don't think Reeves does that- which is not a knock on Reeves (he seems more my kind of guy, and there's a lot of worth in how I imagine his collaborative spirit to be), but I admire and am fascinated by the persona Tom Cruise has adopted and internalized to the point where it's birthed performed and evidenced truth, and unless a new actor finds a spiritual institution where they're conditioned to believe their supreme status, and consequently enhance their will power based on subjectively-assessed information to ascend the barriers a lot of humanity struggles to push beyond -based on delusions or not- I doubt we'll get another like him. He's the ultimate example of the research behind how finite will power is strengthened and increased by spiritual practices and personal belief.

[Mr Sausage]

The John Wick movies strive for creativity and novelty in action just like Tom Cruise blockbusters, but they focus the creativity into the particulars, whereas Cruise movies put their creativity into crafting larger and larger set-pieces I think. But for all their differences I do think both Cruise and Reeves share the same commitment to doing as much of the action themselves as possible. They’re less the inheritors of the Hollywood action hero tradition and more the inheritors of Hong Kong.

[therewillbeblus]

That’s fair, and I don’t disagree with any of that. It just seems to me that -especially in relation to knives’ reading of this film- Cruise’s commitment is in service partially for the overwhelming pressure that comes with his ego and the evidence for that ego’s responsibility, whereas Reeves had always come across as humbler, having a tempered ego and paying more attention to empathy in small interactions with his fellow man than this grand overwhelming expectation of achievement. Tom Cruise seems committed to die on screen for us if it means that his legacy and The Movies will live on and entertain us (though he likely also believes he’s invincible, which helps this seem effortless) while I don’t believe Reeves has even considered engaging with film in any vicinity close to that. Again, that doesn’t mean one is better than the other, but I think they engage with the medium’s value in a different macro way, even if both are committed to the micro work. Cruise feels like a evolved psychospiritual version of the original movie star’s existential struggle with their stardom and performance as absolute ‘Everything’- which at the time may have been earned with more vulnerable risk of being disenfranchised if they didn’t excel, and now has transitioned from safety in Maslow’s hierarchy to something more in line with self-actualization for a Tom Cruise. Everything about Reeves’ interviews suggest he would’ve gently stopped me several sentences ago to go tend to a cat he noticed behind me that seemed lost and help it find its owner

I also don't mean to suggest that Cruise has no humility. By all accounts he's an avid learner, treats people well, and humbles himself before experts when learning the ropes or refining his skills. Nor do I think he has issues with self-actualization; rather - this is something he guardedly protects in a variety of ways that perhaps Reeves doesn't. I wonder the extent to which martial arts plays a role. Reeves is a long-time martial artist and, having grown up with a father who is also one and basically filtered every life lesson I've ever been taught through a framework of Kenpō, I know how that practice teaches and demands spirituality and humility as part of a collective and an individual, rather than a lone man striving to be the best and feeling like he's responsible for everyone without necessarily feeling like he can share that burden.

[beamish14]

The meta text is bit harder to summarize. What fascinates me in the film is how Cruise is grappling with his own mortality.

I remember how there was a bit of attention garnered from the fact that Cruise had a teenage offspring in War of the Worlds, as it seemed to counter the prevailing image of him as being an eternally youthful ubermensch

It’s interesting to contrast Cruise’s filmic image with that of others who has A-list careers across decades like John Wayne, Paul Newman, Gregory Peck, Clint Eastwood, or especially Burt Lancaster, who all made films which grappled with the limitations one incurs from age

[therewillbeblus]

Cruise is finally starting to show his age a bit, so I wouldn't discount that as a possibility

[knives]

The meta text is bit harder to summarize. What fascinates me in the film is how Cruise is grappling with his own mortality.

I remember how there was a bit of attention garnered from the fact that Cruise had a teenage offspring in War of the Worlds, as it seemed to counter the prevailing image of him as being an eternally youthful ubermensch

It’s interesting to contrast Cruise’s filmic image with that of others who has A-list careers across decades like John Wayne, Paul Newman, Gregory Peck, Clint Eastwood, or especially Burt Lancaster, who all made films which grappled with the limitations one incurs from age

Yeah, I’m not sure if Cruise would ever feel comfortable making something like The Shootist. I said it as a joke, but he really is Chris Traeger as superhero and I imagine any time he encounters death he reacts like Chris did to li’l Sebastian. Life and usefulness in this film are treated as basically the same thing. So his version isn’t going to be playing a one eyed codger, but rather being a real life John Henry seeing if he is better than the robots (that weirdly does connect him to Tár).

I think Eastwood might be a useful comparison. I could see him doing a high energy, optimistic version of Unforgiven or Gran Torino where he doesn’t know how to relate to the new ways and so must enter into some sort of suicidal pact for purposefulness. In a sense that’s what Mission Impossible has become as he finds the limit of his body in these stunts to prove that he is something better.

[jbeall]

Cruise is finally starting to show his age a bit, so I wouldn't discount that as a possibility

This was actually the biggest problem I had with the movie. As a friend who teaches at the Air War College in Montgomery AL explained to me, fighter pilots get transitioned out of active duty around age 40 because all those g-forces put them at a significantly heightened risk for heart attacks or strokes, and the US military doesn't want them dying and crashing those expensive planes.

I also knew a couple of French Air Force fighter pilots in their early 30s, and they talked about how they were already suffering hearing loss from being in a jet fighter. Basically, there's no helmet (at least not back then; I don't know if the technology has improved) that can protect your ears from regular exposure to jet engines only a few feet away. If Maverick had been flying jet fighters since the mid-80s, he'd likely be deaf.

One thing the film did show was the effects of those forces on one of the younger pilots, but that's precisely why no one in their right mind would let a 60-year-old fly their fighters, let alone one with Maverick's history.

Obviously, willing suspension of disbelief and all that. And I did enjoy the nostalgic beats, much as I enjoyed watching Creed and recalling Rocky. I don't know to what extent jingoism factored into viewers' enjoyment (or non-enjoyment), but it's clearly not realistic, and I enjoyed it as I would a fairy-tale removed from any historical context.