THE MUMMY: CRAPORAMA DONE TONGUE IN CHEEK
It has been a while (Godzilla) since we've seen a really cheesy movie come out. I think The Mummy might have been a more enjoyable experience for me than Godzilla - though I recall laughing out loud in Godzilla at similar inanity throughout that movie. The Mummy however is one of those pieces of cinema that is so self conscious, so aware of itself, so knowing of the genre's limitations - that instead of expanding them, it takes all the bad points, all the corniness, all the cliches and stereotypes it, then amplifies it. And this is in the end what I found interesting about a film that is so cynical yet so standard. And because I could see through this cynical manipulation (masterfully done if you look at it), I didn't sit back in awe, I actually thought, I don't want to watch movies like this. The reason why Indiana Jones was so good was that it was aware of itself but didn't say "look here" - Instead, the story spoke for itself and the adventure, suspense, good editing, great sound, blah blah took over the in-jokes and turned them into genuinely good films. Instead with the Mummy, for example, we get amplified stereotypes of Arabs - so much so that they remain funny to a broad audience, but they're funny to an audience familiar with film convention of the idiot arabs (who may laugh because they almost cringe at the way it's being used). Here is what Philip Kolker in A CINEMA OF LONELINESS wrote in the eighties about Raiders of the Lost Ark:
"The most resonant political representations in the film
are the Arabs, and one must recall that the film appeared at a
high pont of anti-Middle East feeling in the United States, just
after the Iranian hostage situation and at the beginning of the
Reagan regime. Even though Indiana has an Egyptian friend and
protector in the character of Sallah, the Arabs are seen mostly
as cunning, swarming, somehat dim-witted tools of the Nazis and
victims of the hero's physical prowess. One sequence in
particular stands out. At the end of a long search through
Arab-thronged streets for his beloved, Marion, who has been
spirited off by the Nazis, Indy suddenly finds himself
confronting an enrormous Arabian figure. Bearded, turbaned,
dressed in black robes with a red sash, this giant stands alone
twirling a large sabre. He is the fantasy of every hated Arab
enlarged into one figure. He grins malevolently at his helpless
prey. A cut to Indy shows him with a somewhat quizzical and
contemptuous expression. The narrative pattern of Raiders of the
Lost Ark presents its hero with a series of insurmountable
obstacles, which he then surmounts by cleverness or physical
skill. He gathers up the subjectivity of the audience, removes
from it the reality of danger, and then repositions that
subjectivity within a kinetics of victory over physical obstacles
and escape. NEITHER THE VIEWER NOR THE VIEWER'S ADVENTUROUS
SURROGATE (indiana) EVER LOSES, and the meeting with the Arabian
is no exception.
The quizzical contemptuous gaze offered by Indy is not a
manifestation of uncertainty about what action he will take.
Quite the contrary. He simply pulls a gun and shoots the Arab
dead. The significance of his (quizzical and contemptuous) look
turns out to be amazement that the Arab would assume such useless
posturing; should even for a moment think himself a threat. The
ideological positioning of the viewer is made quite certain.
Subjected to imagined humiliations at the hands of Middle
Easterners - figures so outside known cultural limits that they
have only just barely achieved the rank of stereotype - the
audience, having given itself over to the hero, finds it can now
subject the villain to instant, guiltless retribution. The
response to this sequence in a movie theater was overwhelming.
The hero's bravura, his ability to dispatch enemies without
himself getting seriously hurt, assured the viewer an instant and
untroubling gratification. Reaganism had its first explicit
filmic representation."
I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark, and it is questionable how much Kolker is really reading into this - but can I point out how influential that scene has been in film making in general. If there is one scene that I think affected action and introduced humour into such previously elaborate fights - this scene was it (I would rank it as one of the best scenes in cinema). But the stereotype of the Arab has remained in films post Raiders (1983). Not one film has even tried to deal with the stereotype significantly - and Raiders of the Lost Ark in spite of it being intended only as a escapist tale - has had a major influence on Arab portrayals. Even The Siege reverted to arab stereotyping. However, the Mummy takes all of the humour of Indiana and makes it worse. The subtelty is gone and instead a big blob of crap is placed instead. Whereas the arabs were implicitly rebuked in Indiana, they are now turned into full slaves of the Mummy's power - totally brainwashed by his spell (the good arab characters again are more ancient gate keepers than true arabs - they are friends more with the old and wise english librarian than with the arab people). And when you read Kolker's quote - so much of it applies to the Mummy - but it is in no context - there is no ingenuity, no subtext, no subtelty. Audiences who don't watch too many action/adventure films might be fooled - but in the end, this winking and amplification of themes we have seen over and over again over the last ten years DOES NOT absolve the film makers for sticking to those stereotypes.
The Mummy has been exposed therefore as a film that knows the stereotypes, makes no attempts to atleast change some of them, but then has a bet both ways by acknowledging how bad, how stereotypical, how cliched it is. Successful films either go with the story - and don't become very self conscious OR they invert the standard. The Mummy is an adequate film - sure it has laughs - but I bet an Indian Jones re release could make as much money. After all, the Jones trilogy is better shot, better acted, better scripted and at least has some sort of context and depth beyond its apparrent shallow experience.
55/100