Classic Movie Review : Con Air (1997)
Nicolas Cage hasn't always been Nicolas Cage. The artsy weirdo that automatically defines anything he's working on as some kind of pastiche (unless he forces you to decide otherwise) once was an up-and-coming action star. Con Air was never meant to be understood ironically. It was a crazy, ambitious modern day retelling of classic pirate tales and you know what? Although it shows every characteristic of an ironic moviegoing experience twenty-years down the line, it still kicks some serious ass.
Con Air tells the story of Cameron Poe (Cage), a U.S Ranger imprisoned for the manslaughter of an evil drunk who coveted his pregnant wife. Fast forward seven years later, he is inexplicably booked on a flight across America with extremely fucking dangerous convicts. Of course, they take over the plane and Poe is the only living soul with a) the desire and b) the tactical knowledge to do something about it. Even though he gets many chances to get the fuck out of dodge, Poe decides to do what’s right, goddamnit!
Swashbuckling for Adults in Denial
This is a very simple movie. Con Air is a fantasy about a moral outlaw upholding all-American justice among immoral outlaws. Cameron Poe has committed murder, but he did it trying to defend his family from soulless drunk and was railroaded by an impotent and disinterested government as a consequence. A lot of Westerns, Knights tales and swashbuckling adventures at sea historically have the same exact premise. What makes Con Air special is the ridiculous amount of evil aboard that goddamn plane.
Although it is party remembered today because of Nicolas Cage's glorious hair, Con Air is mostly carried by the performances of John Malkovich and Steve Buscemi as Cyrus "The Virus" Grissom and Garland Greene respectively. The evil genius and the monster. They are reflections of who Poe could’ve turned into were he not steered into a good path by good ol’ all-Amertican family values. Both men are intelligent, dynamic and, like Poe, will break a few bones (or perhaps even more) to make things happen.
Everything important happens in such a confined space, Con Air could be turned into a stage play with minimal adaptation. There's a lot of explosions and bodies dropping, but no mayhem happens for the sake of creating mayhem. In Con Air, mayhem happens because evil dudes feel bored and insecure in circumstances they should totally feel bored and insecure with. If everything explodes and everyone dies, it's because no one gives a fuck about their own safety. The plane feels extremely dangerous, as it should be.
Masculinity and Righteous Murder
Con Air is a testosterone heavy movie. It is, like several movies of its time, trying to put a moral frame on traditional masculine values: aggression, protection, being a provider, etc. The fundamental difference between Poe and his flight mates is empathy. He embodies empathic, selfless masculinity at the service of others. The movie's unironically best and most heartbreaking example of that is Poe's struggling to keep his daughter's birthday present intact: a cheap plush bunny with a talent to get itself in trouble.
The bunny is more than a bunny. It symbolizes Poe's sense of responsibility. Embracing fatherhood kept him alive in prison all these years and even though ultimately no one cares about the goddamn bunny, it's important for him to give his daughter a proof that he was always there and he always loved her. Are any of the other flying cons have anyone even of remotely similar important in their lives? It is never revealed. Because this movie is all about how family and responsibility and save your soul.
If you don’t have anyone to care about or to care for, your self is going to eventually rot. This is somewhat of a fundamentalist take on adult manhood, but this dates Con Air at the era where creative people aggressively tried to establish a moral frame for violence and murder. It's a very American idea to think you can put bullets into all of your problems and that it'll make everything OK and although it's still present today, it was much more prevalent in these days. That's why movies like Con Air age the way they do.
*
Is Con Air as good as we collectively remember it to be? Kind of. It's not quite the throwaway thrill I remembered it was, but it's also a little straight shooting compared to real old school treasures like Face/Off. It's a strong nineties film that is carried by way too much talent for the requirements of its screenplay. It's not something you have to rewatch by any means necessary, but it's straight, seamless screenplay makes it a pleasant, timeless experience. Not quite a classic, but a worthy career retrospective film.
