John Carter (12A)
Released in the UK 9th March 2012
Running time: 132 mins approx.
John Carter is not a science fiction film; it’s important to keep this in mind. The book upon which it is based, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ A Princess of Mars, is not a work of science fiction either. Indeed, any attempt to paint the movie or its 95-year old source material as science fiction will only result in confusion and disappointment, as evidenced by the bewildered reactions of many film critics over the last two weeks. Why am I labouring this point? Because understanding why John Carter isn’t sci-fi is the key to enjoying it on its own terms.
The “sci-fi” label has been attached to the film (and retrospectively to the original book) primarily because of its Martian setting, which has itself created quite a stir amongst critics in the mainstream press. This article from the Guardian is a particularly good example of many journalists’ seeming inability to suspend their disbelief when confronted with an epic adventure story set on a world which science now tells us is a (relatively) lifeless, barren rock. Of course, when Burroughs was writing at the dawn of the 20th century, his vision of a Mars populated by warring tribes of red and green-skinned Martians who called their planet “Barsoom” must have seemed quite plausible. It was, after all, a very different time. The film’s slavish adherence to its source material in this respect might seem foolhardy in an age where we know just how unrealistic such a setting is, but it begins to make sense if we accept that John Carter is not really sci-fi at all, but is instead much closer to fantasy.
Works of science fiction, on the whole, always suppose a certain amount of plausibility in their premises. While their settings and characters may seem outlandish, there is always the suggestion that we – the readers and viewers – are experiencing a world which could, one day, be realised. Not so with works of fantasy, whose concepts seem downright absurd when considered from a realistic perspective. This doesn’t stop them from being great stories, but if one comes to a fantasy film with the same expectations as one would have of a piece of science fiction, severe disappointment is sure to follow. Read A Princess of Mars, and you’ll experience a pulpy, action-adventure tale set in a strange world of bizarre creatures, beautiful princesses, epic battles and heroic quests. In short, a book which – superficially speaking – has far more in common with the works of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis than it does with those of Asimov or Clarke. Its Martian setting is the only thing which links it to the more plausibly-inclined science fiction genre, and all the scientific discoveries of the 20th century have done is brought this aberration in line with the book’s true, fantastical nature. Barsoom could just as easily be Narnia, and we shouldn’t think of it literally as Mars, but rather as “Mars”. All the cinema-goer of 2012 needs to know when watching John Carter is that the hero has found himself in a strange new world that is not our own. Any agonising over the plausibility of its setting will simply hamper one’s enjoyment of the film.
Rather than being a weakness, John Carter‘s faithfulness to Burroughs’ original novels is actually its greatest strength. The sheer reckless abandon of the movie is a welcome break from the formulaic and rather safe blockbusters of recent years. Burroughs’ more outrageous ideas are embraced with glee by the film-makers, and really very little has been tempered for the sake of a cynical contemporary audience. A principled, 19th-century Virginian cavalryman (his past as a Confederate Captain left satisfyingly murky) ends up on another planet, discovers the difference in gravity gives him superhuman strength and agility, and sets about battling armies, rescuing a princess and saving the world. That’s the plot in a nutshell. Director Andrew Stanton is not interested in making any apologies for the pulpy nature of the story or its characters, and the result is a refreshingly bonkers yarn which really needs to be taken on its own terms to be appreciated. The film looks incredible (as you’d expect for a project which reputedly cost $250 million), with steampunk airships gliding across expansive, alien landscapes whilst an array of convincing CGI creatures gaze on in wonder. There are solid performances from Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris and the ever-dependable Mark Strong in yet another villainous role, and despite a few digressions the film’s storyline holds together well and isn’t sacrificed for the sake of superfluous action sequences. The injection of some knowing humour into the story is perhaps the sole concession made to a modern audience, and it’s a welcome one, as some of the film’s more ridiculous features would have been hard to stomach with a completely straight face.
John Carter is not, however, a perfect film. Some judicious editing would have worked wonders on several overlong exposition sequences, and Taylor Kitsch – despite some moments of gravitas – lacks the charisma and the acting range to be completely convincing as the eponymous Earth-man. Stanton and his fellow screenwriters have also made the questionable decision to incorporate elements from the 2nd and 3rd books in Burroughs’ original series, leading to some slightly unwieldy plot turns in an otherwise smooth-running narrative. These issues aside, though, John Carter is an immensely enjoyable romp, and nowhere near deserving of the critical mauling it has received in some quarters. The sad fact is that the film’s legacy may well be determined firstly by Disney’s abysmal attempts at marketing, and secondly by the crowd of disappointed sci-fi fans whose judgement rests in part on the plausibility of an inhabited Mars. The key to enjoying John Carter is to meet it halfway. Abandon your preconceptions and give in to the fantastical, and you’ll discover that this movie is one of those rare beasts; a blockbuster that just wants to have fun.
Jim “King of Nantwich” Taylor
[suffusion-the-author]
[suffusion-the-author display='description']