Well, the last thing I expected when I sat to watch, knowing nothing about the film or L. P. Davies' novel, was that the character of top-billed George Peppard, unspecified government agent Tuxan, would turn out to be a straight-up fascist. Moreover, as the tale eventually sets Tuxan, with his mind games and subtle manipulation, against figures of more heavy-handed abject violence, we as spectators are supposed to cheer him on despite the underhanded brutality of his own methods, ugliness that is not truly unique from those of the "antagonists." Was it Davies' intent from the outset to suggest tacit support for the worst people in the world, or was it the intent of screenwriter Douglas Heyes, or filmmaker Lamont Johnson? Are we really supposed to egg on a goon just because they're nominally aligned with our contemporary nation-state? 'The Groundstar Conspiracy' would be a common, unremarkable, blueprint thriller in a world where George Orwell's Mr. O'Brien reigned supreme, where predominant politics would hold that innocence is nothing more than a pretense for corruption that's not yet been revealed, or instilled; where people are nothing but tools to be exploited and disposed of; and where any means are justified for any end. In our world, it's not so easy to derive entertainment from a piece where we're seemingly meant to root for an unreservedly awful person.
In fairness, the picture gives us another character, Michael Sarrazin's, who quickly becomes meaningfully, deservingly sympathetic; then again, we viewers are not concretely given satisfaction when all is said and done, and any rebuke to Tuxan that is written into this is soft and scarcely more than lip service. True, in all other regards this is well made. Setting aside the elevation of Tuxan and his methods, the plot is duly compelling, and the scene writing is quite strong. I think some parts of the narrative could be tightened, with greater connectivity between ideas, but the foundations are solid. From filming locations to production design and art direction the basic visuals are swell, and the stunts and effects superb. All involved give excellent performances, including Peppard and Sarrazin, and certainly also Christine Belford. At its best this offers fine tension and suspense, and the sense of thrills we desire. And I'm actually of the mind that the top highlight in this ninety-odd minutes might be Paul Hoffert's music - themes of synth-driven sobriety and fleet-footed jazz that tastily complement the action, and the mood at any given time, while themselves nestling deep within our ears and wresting a noticeable fragment of attention away from the rest of the feature. I'm not saying Hoffert's score is a revelation, but it is striking, and most welcome.
And still I'm stuck on how 'The Groundstar Conspiracy' positions Tuxan as a hero despite his viciousness and never completely takes that away from him, no matter how deep his wickedness runs. No, not every story has a happy ending; some wonderfully absorbing stories definitively end in a virtuous protagonist's defeat. Life is not so simple, cut, and clean as fiction where earnest, good-natured people frequently eke out a lasting victory. That's just the point, though: in a world where malice and cruelty are their own ends for the worst of people who purposefully trample the vulnerable while destroying crucial societal institutions, why would we want to watch a movie that cuts so close to home, and in which a central, uplifted character is defined by that same inhumanity? Just as much to the point, the types of stories and figures that we create, consume, and celebrate is indicative of where we are as a person, or as a people. It's one matter to find value in a hero who has their own flaws, or in an outright anti-hero; I would find it disturbing for a person to take delight in the activities of this title's Tuxan just a much as I would for a person to fervently enjoy playing murderous villains in a role-playing game. Ultimately the true worth of this film may arguably be not so much in the watching of it, but in watching the watchers to see how they react.
I don't dislike this, but the appreciation it might earn has at least as much to do with the scrutiny and discussion that follows from it, if not more, as from the actual viewing experience. Usually about now I'd say that I'm glad for those who get more out of it than I do, but for the very particular reasons I've highlighted, that isn't necessarily the case this time. Maybe I'm being too cynical and jaded, and maybe my perspective on 'The Groundstar Conspiracy' is overly harsh. The impression it gives off to me does not come out of nowhere, however, and so I regard it with some trepidation. If it's a thriller you want, it's a thriller you'll get; I'm just of the mind that between some looseness in the plot and its development, and and above all the way that Tuxan is treated throughout and all the way to the end, the legacy of this flick stews in murk, and any especial recommendation is hard to come by. I won't say "don't watch"; I will say "if you choose to watch, do so with a mind for critical thought and analysis." Take that as you will.
In fairness, the picture gives us another character, Michael Sarrazin's, who quickly becomes meaningfully, deservingly sympathetic; then again, we viewers are not concretely given satisfaction when all is said and done, and any rebuke to Tuxan that is written into this is soft and scarcely more than lip service. True, in all other regards this is well made. Setting aside the elevation of Tuxan and his methods, the plot is duly compelling, and the scene writing is quite strong. I think some parts of the narrative could be tightened, with greater connectivity between ideas, but the foundations are solid. From filming locations to production design and art direction the basic visuals are swell, and the stunts and effects superb. All involved give excellent performances, including Peppard and Sarrazin, and certainly also Christine Belford. At its best this offers fine tension and suspense, and the sense of thrills we desire. And I'm actually of the mind that the top highlight in this ninety-odd minutes might be Paul Hoffert's music - themes of synth-driven sobriety and fleet-footed jazz that tastily complement the action, and the mood at any given time, while themselves nestling deep within our ears and wresting a noticeable fragment of attention away from the rest of the feature. I'm not saying Hoffert's score is a revelation, but it is striking, and most welcome.
And still I'm stuck on how 'The Groundstar Conspiracy' positions Tuxan as a hero despite his viciousness and never completely takes that away from him, no matter how deep his wickedness runs. No, not every story has a happy ending; some wonderfully absorbing stories definitively end in a virtuous protagonist's defeat. Life is not so simple, cut, and clean as fiction where earnest, good-natured people frequently eke out a lasting victory. That's just the point, though: in a world where malice and cruelty are their own ends for the worst of people who purposefully trample the vulnerable while destroying crucial societal institutions, why would we want to watch a movie that cuts so close to home, and in which a central, uplifted character is defined by that same inhumanity? Just as much to the point, the types of stories and figures that we create, consume, and celebrate is indicative of where we are as a person, or as a people. It's one matter to find value in a hero who has their own flaws, or in an outright anti-hero; I would find it disturbing for a person to take delight in the activities of this title's Tuxan just a much as I would for a person to fervently enjoy playing murderous villains in a role-playing game. Ultimately the true worth of this film may arguably be not so much in the watching of it, but in watching the watchers to see how they react.
I don't dislike this, but the appreciation it might earn has at least as much to do with the scrutiny and discussion that follows from it, if not more, as from the actual viewing experience. Usually about now I'd say that I'm glad for those who get more out of it than I do, but for the very particular reasons I've highlighted, that isn't necessarily the case this time. Maybe I'm being too cynical and jaded, and maybe my perspective on 'The Groundstar Conspiracy' is overly harsh. The impression it gives off to me does not come out of nowhere, however, and so I regard it with some trepidation. If it's a thriller you want, it's a thriller you'll get; I'm just of the mind that between some looseness in the plot and its development, and and above all the way that Tuxan is treated throughout and all the way to the end, the legacy of this flick stews in murk, and any especial recommendation is hard to come by. I won't say "don't watch"; I will say "if you choose to watch, do so with a mind for critical thought and analysis." Take that as you will.