The most famous line from “Top Gun”, the 1986 fighter-jet movie that made Tom
Cruise internationally renowned, was “I feel the need, the need for speed”. And
now, 36 years after the world was introduced to Maverick, Iceman, and Goose, a
nostalgia fueled sequel jets into the Cannes Film Festival and then onto our
cinema screens.
اضافة اعلان
Some are
ecstatic that they can take a nostalgia trip to yesteryear, with excitement
running as high as it was for the return of Han Solo to the “Star Wars”
universe. For others, it is another example of a Hollywood bereft of new story
ideas and resorting to the tried and tested to make a quick buck.
The return of
“Top Gun”’s may jar with some because the original was the quintessential movie
of the Reagan years, filled with jingoistic masculine bravado for the Cold War
era. The whole point of the film was that the American military was not only
fun but a great lifestyle choice, and the days of Vietnam were well and truly
over.
In the original,
Tom Cruise was a young, handsome buck who went to an elite school for fighter
jet pilots and bedded his teacher whilst having a macho competition with his
contemporaries over who was the fastest and most daring. They were elite
pilots, the best of the best, and part of an American military machine far
superior to anything else the world, especially the Soviets, had to offer.
The film did not
even need to name the Soviet Union as the enemy. It was clear that underpinning
the story was that this was American technology overcoming Russian know-how. It
was “Rocky IV” in planes.
The film was so
good at imparting American jingoism that the Navy set up booths in movie theaters
aiming to recruit cinemagoers as they exited the movie. And it worked.
Recruitment skyrocketed. Soon after “Top Gun’s” release, everyone was happy.
The tills at the box office rung like crazy, and then the Cold War ended. It
was America triumphant when Hollywood was having a boom period. It was so
exhilarating that my teenage self went out to buy a pair of aviators.
The sequel’s
arrival also tells us a lot about current world politics and the state of
Hollywood. The film’s unnamed enemy this time is clearly Iran, something a
little concerning, especially for audiences in the Middle East who have watched
in horror at how Hollywood has treated characters from the region and the
Muslim world as a whole over the decades.
“Top Gun:
Maverick” sees a seemingly never-aging Tom Cruise returning to the flight
academy to teach graduates how to fly jets to attack the site of a uranium
enrichment plant. And you do not need the twang of some of the American accents
in the film that make uranium sound like Iranian to know that this is a plot
inspired by America’s fractured relationship with Tehran.
The “Top Gun:
Maverick” pilots are up against an enemy about whom not much is known. And
while the details suggest it is Iran, the fact that we never see the color of
the enemy’s face and that the valley they have to attack could be countryside
anywhere suggests that it could be anywhere or nowhere.
Thankfully, blockbusters have to be less racist, less misogynistic, and less smothered in American jingoism to succeed globally.
And what a fine
decision that is from the filmmakers. They could not have foreseen the pandemic
that forced the delay in the release of “Top Gun: Maverick” by almost two
years, but the film now comes at a time when all the focus in America is back
on the Russian enemy.
But the decision
not to clumsily stereotype a Middle Eastern enemy in yet another movie has less
to do with changing geopolitics than it is about the changing nature of the
business of Hollywood.
When “Top Gun”
came out, the North American box office was the largest in the world. Films
would regularly make more money in US cinemas than they would in the rest of
the world. That has changed in the past decade. Suddenly, the box office is in
the Middle East and Asia matters in ways it did not in the ‘80s.
Now film studios
have to be conscious of the box office in countries around the world, just as
new streaming platforms are savvy about not offending the sensibilities of
potential subscribers.
Me Too and the
Black Lives Matter movements have also, at the same time, highlighted the poor
treatment of minorities and women on screen. In addition to the refusal to
denigrate peoples, a big difference in the “Top Gun” movies is how the
relationship dynamic between Cruise and his love interest has changed.
Cruise has taken
advantage of the globalization of the movie business more than any other star.
His “Mission Impossible” movies have been particularly adept at using locations
such as the Burj Khalifa in ways old Hollywood would use the Empire State
Building.
Thankfully,
blockbusters have to be less racist, less misogynistic, and less smothered in
American jingoism to succeed globally.
What is
remarkable about “Top Gun” is how it balances all these political facets while
staying true to the spirit of the original but still creating fantastic flight
scenes. While the idea may not be new or the film particularly great, this “Top
Gun” movie is the first modern-day blockbuster in the age of Me Too and Black
Lives Matter. And for that, a lot of people will be thankful.
The writer is a film critic, author of the biography
“Spike Lee: That’s My Story and I’m Sticking to It”, and Director of
International Programming for the Red Sea International Film Festival.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
