Edge of Tomorrow: Metaphors! Jellyfish! Confusion!

Edge of Tomorrow
Released 06/06/14
Directed by Doug Liman
Written by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth
Based on the book by Hiroshi Sakurazaka

I’m not usually one to watch action films, with superhero movies being the exception, but there was one big reason to finally get around to watching Edge of Tomorrow.

Emily Blunt.

She’s great. She’s just, great. Like, seriously. Ugh. Guys. Come on.

Next on my ‘to watch’ list is The Devil Wears Prada.  For now, let’s get back to Edge of Tomorrow.

Earth has been attacked by aliens. Octopus mechanical aliens who can manipulate time. How can you defeat an enemy who can manipulate time?

Obviously, you can’t.

Except you can! By killing one of the alpha aliens (which are not, however, the main aliens despite the misleading name) and absorbing their time controlling ability, even though this ability is located in a different part of the overall alien unit. Because that makes sense. For humans to use the time control ability, they have to die, and the day starts over.

Emily Blunt plays a super soldier badass called Rita who used to have the time control ability, but lost if after a blood transfusion. How she figured out she lost it is beyond me, because wouldn’t she have to die to know for sure? But anyway.

Tom Cruise plays Cage, the ex ad-man turned army public relations/idiot soldier who knows diddly squat about combat and yet somehow manages to kill one of the alphas and start resetting the day. He and Rita team up to try and end the war.

That’s more or less the plot of Edge of Tomorrow. It’s a funny, well crafted movie with an abundance of plot holes. If you overlook these, it’s quite decent.

But where is the fun in that?

WHY does the army insist on sending a soldier who knows shit all about combat onto the frontline of a warzone equipped with weapons he can’t use where he will almost definitely kill more humans than aliens? There is literally no reason to do this. He is a major liability and will definitely do more harm than good. There is no reason they would want to get rid of him, after all, he’s on their side. Except, you know, the plot.

WHY doesn’t Rita just kill another Alpha and take back her time control ability that way?

WHY doesn’t anyone believe in time control in a time when aliens exist and there is overwhelming evidence to support that they’re telling the truth?

WHY haven’t the aliens crushed humanity already if they can CONTROL FREAKING TIME?

And WHY has no one else noticed that the aliens are basically just giant bluebottle jellyfish (a.k.a the Portuguese man o’ war), which you may be interested to know are not actually jellyfish at all, but are actually siphonophorae- a colonial organism made up of hundreds of tiny jellyfish all working together to kill you as painfully as possible?

Also can we talk about how irritatingly convenient it is for alien species to all be linked up to one ‘brain’ that if destroyed will wipe out all the little aliens simultaneously, which happens in both Edge of Tomorrow and in the first Avengers movie? What is this, some kind of metaphor for working together whilst also appreciating the value of independence and individual thought? That mindlessly following a leader will be your downfall? That humanities soul saving grace again alien invasion is that although we are strongest when we band together, we should never forget our singularly complex mind and self as being a vital part of an overall system that is as complex in it’s individual pieces as it is as a whole? And that it’s ones ability to think and be a free, independent, autonomous being that ultimately benefits the greater good more so than one system that rules everyone as a set of mindless pawns?

Nah, I doubt it.

Anyway, back to Emily Blunt being a badass! Very cool. Would watch again.

The Lion King is Macbeth from Scar’s POV

The Lion King
Released 15/06/94
Directed by Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff
Written by Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts & Linda Woolverton

Being as I am, a deftly sophisticated and terribly well read individual, I was in the car talking to my boyfriend about Shakespeare. Specifically, Hamlet. Specifically, how Hamlet was appropriated in the roughest sense to make Disney’s The Lion King (1994)

Fine. We were talking about The Lion King.

The Lion King Does have certain echoes of Hamlet in it. Namely, the uncle killing the father to steal his throne, and the son’s vengeance. There’s a ghost too, voiced by Darth Vader and showing up in the clouds over Africa. All good things. The Shakespeare appropriation goes further though, as The Lion King spawned a sequel based loosely off of Romeo and Juliet, and a third film that sits parallel to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (by Tom Stoppard). That last one is an appropriation of an appropriation of Hamlet; take a moment to wrap your brain around that and then let’s move on!

We were talking about all of this, when Boyfriend mentioned he often confused Hamlet with another Shakespeare play, Macbeth. Being the deftly sophisticated and terribly well read individual I am, I has a chuckle at this adorable peasant-like ignorance, and then had a thought. Maybe Boyfriend was on to something. Maybe The Lion King has a little more Shakespeare than first thought. Maybe, just maybe… Oh yes indeed. The Lion King is Macbeth from Scar’s point of view!

Mind. Blown.

Let’s examine this, shall we? Macbeth, set in Scotland, tells the story of, uh, Macbeth. Macbeth has a claim to the throne second to the King, Duncan. But Duncan undermines this claim and instead names his son as his successor. Macbeth (with a little prompting from three witches and his wife) murders Duncan, shifts the blame, and takes the throne. The son flees. Under his rule, Scotland is in chaos. Unwilling to abandon ship, Macbeth sticks it out to the bloody end, when the son returns, kills him, and reclaims his throne.

GEE. THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR.

Scar was next in line for the throne, until Mufassa named his son Simba as his successor. Scar (with a little prompting from three hyenas) murders Mufassa, shifts the blame, and takes the throne. Simba flees. Under his rule, Africa is in chaos- no food, no water, nada. Unwilling to abandon ship, Scar sticks it out the the bloody end, when Simba returns, kills him, and reclaims his throne.

Disney, you clever minx.

There are a few obvious issues with this reading. The first is the witches. I have likened them, very loosely, to the hyenas, who are Scar’s assistants. The only real parallels are that there are three of them, they cackle and cause trouble, and they hail Macbeth/Scar as a king. However, it’s also worth noting that Shakespeare perhaps didn’t write the major witches scenes in Macbeth– Thomas Middleton probably did. The connection is lose, but forgivable.

Lady Macbeth is a more major raised eyebrow. She doesn’t have a parallel in The Lion King, which is a shame because she does play a rather pivotal role in the play. Arguably, this omission from the film can be justified by the way lion prides are structured, with one Alpha male that mates with all the ladies. Realism on this side, I think, justifies straying from the original text.

So there we have it! Children’s films proving yet again how complex and sneaky they can be. Simba is our Hamlet; Scar is our Macbeth. Let the word of Shakespeare live long, and prosper.