|
In a time like ours, when every comic-book company in the world seems to have a movie deal, and everyone from Pixar to Will Smith has spoofed the superhero genre, there is something kind of refreshing about a film like Push. Yes, on the one hand, it is yet another superhero movie, coming to us at a time when there have arguably been far, far too many of these films as it is. But, on the other hand, it is not based on any existing franchises or characters, so the filmmakers have an opportunity to surprise us by creating a new story entirely from scratch—a new story that will not be hindered by any perceived need to cater to an existing fanbase.
What is more, Push takes its subject matter fairly seriously, or at any rate does not exploit its subject matter for cheap ironic laughs. If anything, the film represents a significant attempt to bring the genre back down to Earth, to make superheroes seem more "realistic." Just as TV shows like Smallville and Heroes have tended to let the superpowers speak for themselves, without getting distracted by campy capes and costumes, so too Push features characters who simply wear business suits or slightly tattered clothes, whatever suits their lifestyle. And just as the Jason Bourne movies gave new life to the international-espionage thriller by using hand-held cameras and taking place in everyday locations rather than posh tourist spots, so too Push achieves a certain kind of naturalism by taking place in the busy streets and back alleys of Hong Kong. At times it has an almost documentary sort of feel.
So there are several compelling reasons to like this film, or to want to like it. But it all falls apart, alas, at the screenplay level. Screenwriter David Bourla—who, according to the Internet Movie Database, has written a few time-travel flicks and directed some of the "thumb" spoofs of classic movies (Frankenthumb, Bat Thumb, The Godthumb)—comes up with some intriguing concepts. But he consistently contradicts his own premises, or fails to follow through on their potential.
An opening voiceover, narrated by 13-year-old clairvoyant Cassie Holmes (Dakota Fanning), sets things up economically enough. She spells out the different kinds of powers that people can be born with: "movers" can manipulate physical objects without actually touching them, "pushers" can plant false memories and similar ideas into other people's minds, "watchers" such as Cassie herself can see into the future, and so on. She also tells us that a shadowy branch of the American government known only as Division has taken it upon itself to round these people up and perform various experiments on them in the hope of creating a new psychic army. So far, however, Division has had no success, because all their subjects keep dying.
And then, one day, a subject survives, as a "pusher" named Kira Hudson (Camilla Belle) wakes up from her drug-induced stupor and escapes from the Division laboratory. Kira is promptly pursued by Division agent Henry Carver (Djimon Hounsou) and his minions, some of whom have superpowers and some of whom do not; and for some reason she is also pursued by a Chinese gang of "bleeders," people who can scream at frequencies that shatter glass and cause internal organs to explode. But she also gets help from Cassie and Nick Grant (Chris Evans), a "mover" who happens to be an ex-boyfriend of Kira's.
Keeping track of all these characters and their various agendas is tricky enough as it is. But things are made infinitely more complex by the fact that the "watchers" on every team can see the future—and one thing they all agree upon is that Nick, Cassie, and possibly others will die. However, Cassie tells us the future is always in flux, and it is possible to change the future simply by talking about it—and yet, despite the fact that Cassie and her friends talk about it all the time, the future never seems to change for them. At least you can understand why they would talk about it; it's harder to understand why the other teams keep taunting Nick and Cassie with their knowledge of the future, knowing that their taunts could change things.
The film does express some interesting ideas about the nature of fate and free will, but the story applies them in ways that make no narrative sense. Ultimately, Nick decides that the best way to trick the "watchers" and their visions of the future is to avoid making decisions until the last possible moment—so he gives each of his teammates an envelope, with instructions to open those envelopes at specific times, and then to follow the instructions that are contained within the envelopes. If they don't know what they are doing until they open those envelopes, then their actions will be more "spontaneous" and impossible to predict, or so the theory goes.
But wait a minute, wouldn't Nick have to have a pretty clear idea of the future already just to give everyone else their instructions? And once he has got everyone going down their various paths, wouldn't the fact that he has set everything up be, itself, a sign that none of their actions are really all that spontaneous after all? The film tries to worm out of this paradox by adding a scene in which Nick gets someone to erase his memory of giving those orders—so now, when Nick opens his own envelope, its contents will be as much of a surprise to him as everyone else's instructions are to them. But once the wheels have been set in motion, does it really make a difference if the person who set them in motion forgets that he did so?
And that is only one of the problems with this film, on a conceptual level. Another big problem is that there don't seem to be any limits to what a "pusher" can do, when it comes to planting false memories in other people's minds; and, as the characters begin to argue over whose memories are real and whose memories are not, you may find yourself losing interest in the story as a whole. If there is no way of knowing what the underlying reality is, then there is no way to know what's really at stake or who should really be trusted. And no, the fact that someone can produce a photo to back up their version of the past means nothing, since we have already seen that "shifters" have the power to change the physical appearance of objects.
So, full marks to director Paul McGuigan (The Reckoning, Lucky Number Slevin) for grounding the story in a believable external world, full of sights and sounds that are at once somewhat exotic to a Western audience, by virtue of being located on another continent, yet are also rather familiar. It's just a shame that the story has no solid footing on the internal level, where character and plotting matter.
Talk About It
Discussion starters- If you could see the future, and you knew that you would probably die by pursuing a course of action, would you still pursue it? What would be worth dying for, or risking death for?
- What does the film have to say about fate and free will? What role does spontaneity play? If you follow an instruction the moment you receive it, without thinking about it beforehand, is that a spontaneous action? What if the person who gave you the order had planned it long in advance? How does this compare to situations in which we obey (or don't) what God is telling us to do?
- How do our memories define us? How are we defined by the memories that other people have of us? Do we need to forget things in order to be free?
The Family Corner
For parents to considerPush is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, brief strong language (a few four-letter words), smoking and a scene of teen drinking (Cassie buys some liquor because alcohol helps "watchers" to see the future more clearly).
Photos © Copyright Summit Entertainment
Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
What other Christian critics are saying:
Annual & Monthly subscriptions available.
- Print & Digital Issues of CT magazine
- Complete access to every article on ChristianityToday.com
- Unlimited access to 65+ years of CT’s online archives
- Member-only special issues
- Learn more
Read These Next
- TrendingAmerican Christians Should Stand with Israel under AttackWhile we pray for peace, we need moral clarity about this war.
- From the MagazineShould the Bible Sound Like the Language in the Streets?Controversy over Bibles in Jamaica, the Philippines, and Germany reveal the divide between the sacred and the relatable.
- Editor's PickA Theologian’s Vision of ‘Peasant’ Politics Is Surprisingly Lordly in ScopeEphraim Radner’s “narrow” concern for protecting the mundane goods of earthly life isn’t so narrow after all.