Unclear and Present Danger - Chain Reaction

Episode Date: May 17, 2024

On this week’s episode of Unclear and Present Danger, we watched the 1996 science fiction conspiracy action thriller Chain Reaction, directed by Andrew Davis — whose previous UnclearPod films are The Package, Under Siege and The Fugitive — and starring Keanu Reeves, Morgan Freeman, Rachel Weisz, Fred Ward, Kevin Dunn and Brian Cox.Chain Reaction revolves around a group of scientists at the University of Chicago who are working to convert hydrogen from water into clean energy. They find their breakthrough when their machinist, Eddie Kasalivich (played by Reeves), discovers the secret — a sound frequency that stabilizes the process. Later that evening, a group of mysterious assailants kill the lead scientist and destroy the laboratory. Kasalivich, who had returned to retrieve his motorcycle after escorting Dr. Lily Sinclair (Weisz) home, is the only witness.When the FBI arrives to investigate, they zero in on Kasalivich and Sinclair as their chief suspects, goaded along by the mysterious presence of advanced technology in Kasalivich’s apartment and evidence of espionage in Sinclair’s. With the help of Paul Shannon, the leader of the Chicago project, they escape the clutches of law enforcement only to find themselves fleeing the armed agents of a secretive industrial group. As Kasalivich and Sinclair race against time to uncover the mystery of the explosion, and clear their names of wrongdoing, they realize that their scientific breakthrough is a threat to some very powerful people, and that their friends aren’t who they seem to be. You can find Chain Reaction to watch on demand on HBO Max and also to rent or buy on Amazon and Apple TV.We’ll see you next in two weeks when an episode on Courage Under Fire, the 1996 legal drama directed by Edward Zwick and starring Denzel Washington, Meg Ryan, Lou Diamond Phillips and Matt Damon.Connor Lynch produced this episode. Artwork by Rachel Eck.Contact us!Follow us on Twitter!John GanzJamelle BouieUnclearPodAnd don’t forget our Patreon, where we watch the films of the Cold War and try to unpack them as political and historical documents! For $5 a month, you get two bonus episodes every month as well as access to the entire back catalog — we’re almost two years deep at this point. Sign up at patreon.com/unclearpod.

The Cold War may be over. But we now find ourselves embroiled in another struggle. An international, industrial struggle. A struggle we dare not lose. In a split second. Did you computer model your work? No, I didn't. I was too busy building it. Eddie Kassolovich will be left with the one thing no one else possesses.

Cheap, abundant energy. Content energy, water to hydrogen. He'd be interested in this technology. A secret. Who wouldn't? The rest of the world would kill for. There are many threats to our way of life. Not all of them wear uniforms.

You run and you'll have every gun-carrying idiot in the country looking for you. Torrents have been issued for Edward Casolovich. I've got him. Tiano Reeves. Someone's setting us up. Borton Freeman. You said you headed under control? I did.

Every action. It's him. I gotta go. We'll come to you. Eddie. As an equal. They're watching everything. I'm being framed.

How did we end up here? And opposite. It's classified. Your position is non-negotiable. We didn't do anything. Reaction. Your experiment just got a mind of its own. Chain reaction.

Who are you? I'm your friend, Eddie. Welcome to Unclear and Present Danger, a podcast about the political and military thrillers of the 1990s and what they say about the politics of that decade. I'm Jamel Bowie. I'm a columnist for the New York Times opinion section. I'm John Gigg. I write the substack newsletter on popular front, and I'm the author of the forthcoming book When the Clock Broke, Con Men Conspiracies and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s, which by the time you listen to this probably will be coming out in almost exactly one month.

So if you haven't ordered already, no time like the present. Or you could just wait a few weeks and get at your bookstore. You could call a bookstore and ask them to stock it for you and it'll be waiting for you. yeah i should say i've been reading a copy right now and it's it's really good and you know cynical listeners would be like well of course she'll just say it's very good it is a very good book i find it like i i think it's fascinating and it's a deep dive on these these the early 90s is um is well taken and i don't know it's like it's a bit of a page turner i think and so i i i I highly recommend people check it out.

I'm sort of in the middle of the chapter on Ross Perot, who as we were done and I were talking about before it show recording, like weird dude, weird guy. And it is, I think, it is itself evidence of the craziness in the air that he became a figure of national importance. Yeah, he was a huge deal. People loved him. He very well could have become preface in it. And in some way, in a weird, different incarnation he did in the form of Donald Trump.

But, yeah, I'm glad you say that. I mean, I think that's an underrated or not an underrated part of the book. But what I would like people to know about this book is that it's actually pretty entertaining, I think. It's not pure, just dry information and facts. It's a lot of fun and weird characters who I thought I had a blast researching and I think you'll have fun reading about. I think you will too. So, I highly recommend that people check out the book. It is very much worthwhile.

For this week's episode of the podcast, we watched the 1996 science fiction, conspiracy, action thriller, chain reaction, directed by Andrew Davis, whose previous unclear pod films. I mean, this guy's like, Davis isn't unclear in present danger at this point. Yeah. Package. He's all over us. and the fugitive a guy who knows how to make a competent thriller and this is a competent thriller.

Chain Reaction stars Keanu Reeves, Morgan Freeman, Richard Weiss, Fred Ward, Kevin Dunn, and Brian Cox. Chain Reaction revolves around a group of scientists at the University of Chicago, and of course, being this, an Andrew Davis movie, this is like a total Chicago movie. You'll recognize lots of people from previous films,

basically like all the cops from the, fugitive are in this. Right. You could, you should just assume that they're the same characters, the same cops. Um, uh, the guy, one, one of the heavies is the guy, the black escapee from the fugitive who ends up. Oh, right. Getting killed. Uh, there, there are a bunch of, a bunch of people from, and also from Michael Mann movies, like the Davis and Mann. Yeah, I've noticed that. I just watched the insider and I, which I had never seen before and I was like, this is like every character actor is in this movie. I love, I love that.

I love that movie. It's so good. It's such an underrated Michael man, I think. And there's not to get derailed, but there's that sequence when he, when Russell Crow's character is kind of dissociating in like his living room or whatever. And it's sort of like this weird kind of like dream sequence and he finds himself like staring. I mean, it's funny because you're like, oh, it's a Michael man movie.

Is there going to be a scene? But it doesn't take place near a body of water. So there's going to be a character staring at a body of water contemplating their fate. And it in fact happens. It's just the character is like mentally dissociating from reality. Right, right, right, right. People watch the, we'll probably do The Insider on this podcast. Watch the insider.

It's great. Okay. So chain reaction revolves around a group of sciences at the University of Chicago who are working to convert hydrogen from water into clean energy. They find their breakthrough. Of course, this movie has nonsense science. They find their breakthrough in their machinist, Eddie Kasalovich, Eddie Kasalovich, played by Reeves, the most non-Kasolovich-looking guy you can imagine, discovers the secret, a sound frequency that stabilizes the project, process, rather. Later that evening, a group of mysterious assailants killed the lead scientists and destroyed the laboratory,

Kassolovich, who had returned to retrieve his motorcycle after his courting, Dr. Lily Sinclair at Weiss, Home, is the only witness. When the FBI arrived to investigate a zero-a-on Kassolovich and Sinclair as their chief suspects, goaded it along by the mysterious presence of advanced technology in Kassolovich's department and evidence of espionage and Sinclair's. With the help of Paul Shannon, the leader of the Chicago project, played by Morgan Freeman, they escaped the clutches of law enforcement only to find themselves fleeing the armed agents of a secretive industrial group.

As Kassolovich and Sinclair race against time to uncover the mystery of the lab explosion and clear their names of wrongdoing. They realize that their scientific breakthrough is a threat to some very powerful people and that their friends aren't who they seem. You can find chain reaction to watch on demand

on HBO Macs, which is how I watch it. And you can also find it to rent or buy on Amazon and Apple TV. The tagline for chain reaction was reaction time. 8-296. I feel like a lot of these are written by people who

did not watch the movie and have very little idea what it's about. This one 100% feels like the person who wrote it did not watch the movie. The killing, the, the time to kill one was like astonishing. That was like the worst. A time you'll never forget or whatever. What was that it? Yeah, something like that. This movie is about rape and murder. The poster for chain reaction does note

that the film was from the director of the fugitives, right? I imagine that that was a legitimately big selling point for the movie. As per the tagline, chain reaction was released on August 2nd, 1996. So let's check out the New York Times for that day. All right. Here what we got. Well, we're in the 1996 election, perhaps one of the most boring elections in the history of the United States. I'm sure that's not true.

I'm sure there's interesting things that happen. But Clinton won't in a blowout. Dole didn't really have much of a chance. The economy was humming along. But here it is. Here's the kind of foreign policy stuff here. Clinton signs bill against investing in Iran and Libya, anti-terrorism measure, Germany and France condemn law since their companies could face sanctions.

Over the objections of America's trading partners, President Clinton signed a law today that would impose sanctions on foreign companies that invest heavily in Iran or Libya, which is described as two of the most dangerous supporters of terrorism in the world. And a speech after the Oval Office signing of the bill, Mr. Clinton went out to call terrorism the enemy of our generation and vowed the United States would fight it alone without its allies, if necessary. Where we don't agree, the United States cannot and will not refuse to do what it believe is right. You know, what I find interesting about this actually is, first of all, this is pre-9-11, of course. The United States is already kind of foreign policy as terrorism becoming terrorism focused. The second thing is, you know, Clinton's foreign policy.

presidency is remembered for a lot of multilateral policies, right? Coalition building using, you know, going through NATO as somebody say, you know, coordinating with our NATO allies, let's say. And the big critique of Bush's foreign policy was all the unilateralism which damaged our relationship with our allies

and got us involved in unwise ventures. but you know you can see the roots of this unilateralism even under clinton which i think is the observation that i would have to this and the other thing is is yeah europe you know we have different interests than our european allies our friends over there um you know corporations in in in europe have long had relationships with um you know powers that we would prefer not to be able to have any kind of arms production or even industrial capacity at all. Saddam Hussein had close relations with French industry, and this was a big issue. So, yeah, those are just my observations about that. Dole offers economic plan calling for

broad tax cut aimed at spurring growth, vows deficit cut. Candidate hopes to woo the middle class and revive campaign. Promising to finish the job, Ronald Reagan started so brilliantly, Bob Dole proposed a wide-ranging plan to spur the economy with 448 billion tax cuts and a 500 per child tax credit, all the while by balancing the budget within five years. Well, the one thing I'll say about this, and I'm sure that you might have some more to say about it, is the person who really finished the job of Ronald Reagan was Bill Clinton, you know, with a softer edge. but, you know, continued a lot of the same policy prescriptions

and the same attitude towards big government, the same attitude towards deregulation of finance, which obviously ended up in horrible places. Dole, I remember at the time, did not seem so terribly far to the right of Clinton. The 90s were a pretty, I mean, they're remembered fondly, but in policy and in politics, It's a pretty right-wing time.

Yeah. I just, I just, what I find interesting here is on the bottom right of the page, you have a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then Democratic Senator from New York. We are putting those children at risk with absolutely no evidence that's radical idea has even the slightest chance of success. That's just interesting to me, right? Yeah.

Moynihan being, you know, author of the infamous Moynihan report during the Johnson administration, kind of someone who, in a lot of words, like I was laid the intellectual groundwork for exactly this set of policies. Right. And it's clearly unhappy about the what his work has gone. Yeah. Yeah, it's true.

I mean, Moynihan's interesting because people who were conservative Democrats or Republicans who fundamentally were like New Deal Democrat or had once been New Deal Democrats or came out of that tradition, but they were like the great society is a step too far. So I think that like, but when the cuts. got too close to the bone, and it seemed that some, well, the Republicans always had the intention of trying to roll back the New Deal. When the, you know, when the fundaments of, you know, American social policy started to get attacked, then they started to get uncomfortable. But as you pointed out, they laid the groundwork for a lot of these attacks and made it more

acceptable and liberal in democratic circles to have those politics. Not to spend too much time on this, but it's a common political, mistake, I think, among people in the center, which is to say, oh, maybe we can kind of like split the difference here. You know, I don't like the great society. Republicans don't like the great society. Then we can come to some consensus about the great society and I can roll that back. We won't touch the new deal.

That's settled. And this notion that political, that the politics has ever settled in that sense and that rollbacks cannot continue is wrong. I think as we're experiencing in this country right now, it's very wrong. But it's like a very common political mistake to think that's sort of like, oh, you just you can come to come to some consensus about like some minor rollbacks, not understanding that not only did Republicans never give up the dream of rolling back as much as the new deal as possible, but the Republican Party as it emerges out of the Second World War and especially post Eisenhower

is specifically comprised of the people who hated the new deal with passionate intensity yeah yeah they've always they've always they've always wanted to get rid of it as T.S. Eliot said there's no such thing

as a lost cause because there's no such thing as a gain cause and that's true in politics nothing ever fully goes away it's always lurking somewhere out there anything else here This is sort of a, to me, a kind of boring 90s paper. There's not much, you know, too acquitted by a whitewater jury.

I can't even begin to tell you what the whitewater scandal was about. No, it's incredibly a not, like one of the most boring scandals ever. It's, yeah, it's not. Yeah, it really is sort of like, you know, there's not going to be a pot. I mean, if there is, I'm sorry, I'm sure. It's good. But I was about to say, there's not going to be a podcast about the whitewater scandal. No.

My friends at Slow Burn at Slade. They're not going to be a slow burn. Right, exactly. Slow burn, white water. That's quite a slow burn. All right. Anyway, that's the 90s for you sometimes. All right.

So, chain reaction. John, have you seen this before? I have seen this before. And I'm pretty sure I saw this in the theater with my dad, like a lot of these other movies. I think I remember seeing it. I remember being, I was kind of a, it's funny as a person who now is just a complete humanities person. I was very into science as a kid.

I guess all kids like science. So I was sort of fascinated by the science subplot of this movie and was like, I do remember seeing it. I remember enjoying it as a kid. And I enjoyed it again. I hadn't seen it. You know, I forgot this movie kind of existed. and when we started talking about it, I was like, oh, yeah, I have seen this.

I haven't seen this movie in, what, 30 years? I don't know. I enjoyed it. I thought that, like, you know, it's sort of right in the middle of our podcast, and it's sort of like the median action movie. It's like, it's pretty good. It's got a lot of recognizable 90s faces. It's got a lot of recognize, like the clothes and costumes are very 90s, the locales are

very 90s. It's just sort of like the vibes of our. I mean, we say this a lot, but this movie may be like the vibes of our podcast encapsulated. And it's sort of like a lesser fugitive. There's a lot of him running. It's also like, I don't know if this is just, we watch a lot of Andrew Davis movies that take place in Chicago, but I feel like one thought I had watching this movie, which is not a very smart one, was they don't make movies during winter anymore.

You know, I feel like this was also a thing in the 90s. Like, there were lots of movies where, like, winter, it being really cold was like a backdrop. And I don't remember last movie I saw where I was, and I was like, yeah, it's cold. There's like an icy lake is a plot, you know. It's because they film everything in Georgia and Louisiana for the tax breaks now. Right, right. So you couldn't even, you can't make movies in winter anymore. Because of woke.

Because it woke. They don't make movies in winter anymore. It's like a Trump model. you know what we're going to do folks we're going to go back we're going to make movies in winter again um but yeah so i it had again lots of nostalgic vibes for me because of of you know seeing it when i was a kid and um and that i think that what this movie is very much of a piece with a whole subgenre or set of tropes that we've dealt with,

which is a conspiracy to prevent... This is a variation on the conspiracy to prevent peace. You know, we saw that right at the end of the Cold War. And now this is another conspiracy. It's a capitalist conspiracy, funnily enough. It's a conspiracy to stop energy, free energy, right? It's a kind of a conspiracy to stop the future. exactly a conspiracy to stop the future to there is a there is a available okay so like i think

we should describe to the viewers or i mean the listeners and the viewers of this movie like the science behind it so it's like a it's they they have this machine that pulls the hydrogen out of water and then it can be burned so and it produces more it's a perpetual motion machine which is, I think, again, I'm going to get science. I'm pretty sure, from what I know of physics is impossible in principle. But the idea is it would get water, it would get the hydrogen out of water, and then the hydrogen would be burned to create energy. And it would create more energy than it put into it. So it would be kind of a perpetual motion machine. This, The science in the movie, as people have pointed out, is like, they change the story of how it actually, the machine actually works.

Like sometimes it's lasers and sometimes it's sound. And it's like a big, it looks like a big water cooler. It's got bubble. It's bubbling. I mean, it's kind of a funny movie machine. I think it's kind of almost interesting that the set is in this like post-industrial wasteland of Chicago, which is, you know, like an interesting place to put it. because we're in the period of American deindustrialization now. And we have this kind of machine, which, you know, points to a clean post-fossil fuels future.

And then there's a very actually convoluted plot, both in the sense of the plot in the movie and the, you know, the villains plotting, where they're working on developing this, but they also want to suppress it where the CIA is. involved and they want to suppress it, I guess, so the oil companies can stay in business, right? Well, I think the way Morgan Freeman explains it is they want to suppress it because the technology would be so revolutionary that it would collapse the economy, which probably, I mean, it probably isn't the case, but the idea is that they're not going to destroy. The idea isn't to destroy the technology, it's to hold it back and release it in fits and starts to allow basically capital to accommodate itself and catch up. Yeah.

Interesting. There's an entire world of conspiracy theories, which I started to get into, which are called free energy suppression conspiracy theories, which have this belief that there are perpetual motion machines, cold fusion, stuff like this sometimes they came from the aliens who crashed here we've taken from them but special interest groups the oil companies want to prevent it from being developed i guess there is some basis in reality of this in the sense that oil companies historically obviously have been hostile to um you know alternative energy sources and the thing about that i don't find particularly compelling about these conspiracy theories is as the government, I guess, is playing

this kind of role as being like, oh, we're, I guess it actually is smarter than it appears because the government is doing what the government actually kind of does, which is like, we're kind of a neutral broker between the different factions of capital, right? So we're doing regulation. And I would say a lot of people who are radical libertarians who complain about the FDA and stuff like that would say, that is what the government does. They're suppressing, they're suppressing the development of new products through the use of regulation to assist the cartels of established firms.

Stuff like that does happen. But I think if there was a, you know, if cold fusion was developed, I don't think they would be really able to keep a lid on that. No, right. I mean, sort of, I mean, the funny, I had a budget thought so watching this. and my set of thoughts that I'll go on this line is that the whole time I was so it's revealed you know Keanu Reeves and Rachel Weiss's character are trying to figure out what's happening and while that's going on it's revealed that Morgan Freeman's character who's sort of like

he's Morgan Freeman kindly old man he's the leader of the project he's actually a bit of the mastermind of this entire thing that he the intent was once they got a successful test of the technology to destroy the factory and, like, kind of keep technology secret. Because Keanu Reeves was there, Freeman's partner played by Brian Cox, decides that we have to kill this kid. And so that's why he becomes a target.

And this is not a thing Freeman intended. The point he doesn't want to kill Keanu Reeves by any means. And so this is how things get mixed up. But Rachel Weiss is actually valuable, right? They need her. Right. Because she's a need her. Yeah.

Maybe, yeah, they don't know that they need Reeves. Although, no, Freeman does know that. but Cox did not. In any case, it's revealed through the movie that this is all kind of a big CIA front, that the primary funder for this entire effort is just like the CIA. And I just made me think, and the other kind of set of players in this were the FBI who were investigating the explosion. And I just was put into the mind of, oh, this is like a stupid CIA project.

It's like this is like a big dumb waste of money. a big boondoggle right a big boondoggle the CIA is pursuing yeah uh and um i just i i don't know i just thought that was funny it's it's sort of this movie as many of as many conspiracy stories do imagine a national state that is like much more focused and coherent than the actual one is well it's like there can do it's like oh the manhattan project is something they can just do you know right yeah they're like well not for many many years Yeah, yeah. And the Manhattan Project was almost, I mean, that's a very special circumstance.

It's, I'm reading, I'm reading Gary Wills' bomb power at the moment. Oh, cool. Yeah. In addition to your book. Yeah. Yeah, it is super interesting. And he kind of makes a point that like the Manhattan Project both becomes this sort of model for executive usurpion of congressional authority, but also attempts to do future Manhattan. projects always end up fucking up because it's just sort of like it's the man the actual manhattan

project which is a special circumstance basically um yeah it's hard you can't really replicate that kind of those those that particular set of circumstances that that made that work including the particular personalities involved um and so future attempts to do sort of secretive programs requisitioning money and such whether it's the bay of pigs invasion or um or or on contra they end up kind of being fucking messes yeah right um so that was one thought that's really interesting the other thing about this movie that i think has to be said is that it very much is like squarely within the framework of like 70s environmentalism which we've discussed in previous episodes right this notion that the environmental problem is that there are too many

people using too many resources and that something has to be done one way or the other. In this movie, what needs to be done is, oh, we have, we have limitless energy now so that can help us reduce the impact on the planet. But obviously, the other way this goes is, oh, we just, we need to be fewer people. Because the movie begins with the monologue by the lead scientist, Alistair, Alistair or something, who ends up being killed, him going on about how, you know, the planets overpopulated, we're using too many resources, we're fighting wars over resources, et cetera, et cetera. This way of thinking about environmental challenges,

that kind of the problem fundamentally is humanity. And so something needs to be done about humanity one way or another. I think it's like very much, it's like this mainstream environmental thinking. It's sort of mainstream. Climate change doesn't really come into it, right? Right, right. Climate change isn't really part of a,

You should think a movie about, you know, not like replacing fossil fuels would deal with, but I guess it would call it global warming back then, but still, yeah. Yeah, but I mean, what's interesting about the emergence of climate change is like a way of thinking about environmental problems is that it actually isn't about, it isn't so much like humanity is the problem. It's much more sort of like, how can we like sustainably exist on the planet, regardless of what our numbers are. And so what, you know, the, I wouldn't call this a classic example, but like a good example of like the difference is that kind of offshoots of 70s environmentalism would look at like where I live and where I live in Charlottes, Virginia, green leafy suburban and say, well, this is, this is good for the environment because of all the trees and green space and everything. Whereas a more climate focused perspective would look at New York City and say, well, no, that's good for the environment. Because carbon usage per person per capita is so incredibly low in New York City because of the density, because of the use of public transportation versus variety of everyone has to have a car, there's sprawl, all these things, which are much more carbon intensive and much more harmful in the aggregate. But it's sort of like, it's like, it's very like the offshoot of 70s environmentalism is very kind of aesthetically driven, right? sort of like this concrete looks ugly, green looks nice, therefore concrete, bad, green good.

And the movie doesn't really get into it, but sort of like, you know, in this opening narration where it's like, you know, our government's fight wars for resources, like obviously part of the conspiracy on part of the government is that, you know, the military industrial complex wants to continue pumping out weapons. uh to use um uh and if you're not fighting wars for oil you can't do that anymore i'm sure if this movie were made in like 2003 you'd have like a dick cheney like the morgan freeman character would be like a dick cheney character you know i know in his little cynical speech but i mean it's just like the assumption here was like this is also very in the 90s 70s through 90s paradigm where you know i think you know most people still think this way even though things have changed a lot you know, we have a problem because we get our oil from the Middle East. And then it turns out we have all the oil in the world. And like it just, I think it's underappreciated that like the

U.S. I think is a is a net supplier of oil right now, right? That's right. Yeah. So I mean, which is not good for the world, but like the United States, everyone was like, we need to break our, it's funny how this happens in American history. Like American politicians are like, we need to break our reliance on foreign oil. And then like we did. And, you know, and there is some move in our country to renewable energy, but, you know, we're not all the way there yet, obviously. But I think the other thing is like movies with conspiracies like this, even though conspiracy is not the right thing, do point to like the fundamental contradictions of capital, which is just like, you know, the technological development that happens in the course of of capital's production threatens the profits of capitalists. So they either have to, you know, it, well, it does both. On the one hand, in the first place, it allows them to create fantastic profits because of mass production, reduced price, you know, reduced costs.

At the same time, you know, it has to, it eventually undermines those profits by, you know, glutting the market with, with, you know, with identical commodities in energy. is obviously, you know, one of the most commoditized products you can imagine because it's kind of fungible. It's always electricity. It's interesting because, like, Keanu Reeves' character is blue collar, right? He's a machinist, you know? He rides a motorcycle. It's not played up in the way it is in some of the earlier kind of populist thrillers that we talked about with, like, with Wesley Snipes or with Bruce Willis. It's not a populist thriller in that regard, but it is interesting that, like, you know,

he's a machinist, which is, you know, he's an expert machinist, but it's skilled labor, but it's labor. And Rachel Weiss is a scientist, and she's considered valuable. And he's kind of being this, he's like, oh, we should just dispose of the machinist. But he actually turns out to be valuable to the project itself

and knows stuff and it's not stupid. And I think that that's, you know, kind of an interesting little comment in a movie where America is really moving into a post-industrial future, especially machinist jobs. They're fewer and fewer because those can be done by computer. I don't even know now with AI. You know, where you have this old model of skilled labor that's required to create this kind of sophisticated machine.

And the capitalists in the movie or the people in charge of administering capital. kind of like, oh, yeah, we can get rid of the worker, but we got to keep the scientists, the technical staff on. And it's like, well, you can't just get rid of the worker so easily because they revolt in a way. And he somehow is able to like, he's just like a machinist, but somehow he's able to kick out, kick the ass of all these like government assassins that are sent after him, which I thought. Yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah, that's always the government assassins a little implausible. Getting, getting past the Chicago cops, that one checks out. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure.

But I think that, yeah, so I thought that was sort of interesting. I mean, the movie doesn't play it up too much, but there was a, there is a slight class component in that he seems to be, you know, he's not on the same class level of, you know, Morgan Freeman, certainly Rachel Weiss's character, Brian Cox, of course, or even his, you know, his boss and seemingly mentor who, who's kindly to him, but he's, sort of like, yeah, he's a worker at this and this project. He's not quite of the same level of education or of expertise. So that's something to think about. These conspiracy thrillers often have some implicit and badly done critique of capitalism and I think this one is no difference.

I mean, I'm sure if I was more of an expert in this, I could, there are plenty of examples where cartels or capitalist cartels have actively stifled technological development. In the long term, there's not much you can do. I mean, there's myths. If you listen to some old crackpots, they'll say, they'll tell you stuff like they invented something or, you know, something was invented that could have solved this problem. and then capitalists, you know, permanently suppressed it. Things can't be permanently suppressed. What is not appreciated is that capitalism, and I think this is what people don't fully understand about the Marxian critique of capitalism, Marxian critique of capitalism is often portrayed

like capitalism is an immoral system. Right. I mean, I'm not going to say that it's not, that's not a component of it. But it really, you know, the core of what Marx believed was that capitalism was a inefficient and wasteful system because it was a mode of production that was not, you know, it wasn't quite matched up to the way, what labor was able to do, right? So we had all this capacity, you know, all this wonderful technological capacity, all this social coordination of labor could do all these wonderful things.

But the way private ownership worked was inherently waste. and led capitalists to, you know, try to grab for their own advantages in ways that actually held back the productive capacities of the society, right? So in that sense, the idea that there are cartels and you're like, well, wouldn't capital, aren't capitalists trying to, you know, try to develop the best things possible? Well, no, not always, you know, like they don't, it's not a rational system. It's not a fully rational system, right? You know, and the short-term interest of capitalists is not always their long-term interest

or even in the long-term interest of the system. I mean, capitalists do a lot of things that are systemically hazardous. We see that. There's crisis. So I think the idea that, like, they would suppress the technology that could actually help capitalism as a whole in the long term is not crazy at all because this is kind how it works. Right, right, right. Private ownership of capitals in some sense, like a limiting condition on the development of like the productive capacities of the society. Yeah, that's the

idea. The problem is, is that it doesn't seem, I mean, don't kill me Marxist listeners. It doesn't seem that we've quite solved the problem of how public ownership of that would would do do better but but I believe we'll get there so but yeah that so I think that that's like I think when people get frustrated or angry at big business or greedy people and you're just like well the problem is is that like the system is set up in such a way that these are that that's the way they're going to behave you can have i'll say you can have private ownership that isn't this because like part of the issue right is that like private ownership is often either concentrated in like a singular person sort of like dictatorship of of a specific owner um or right like you know uh shareholders

people who sort of like represent or are the capital owning class and like represent their so and so forth but you can have like cooperatives you can have her like worker own firms. You can have things that are not publicly owned, but sort of like owned by the people who produce the thing. And this movie proposes an alliance between the professional managerial classes and the working classes against the bosses. But the bosses triumph, I guess, in the end, or the CIA triumphs. That's actually one of the odd things about this movie, because two things happen at the end. The first is that Keanu Reeves does, he shares. all the information from the project with the FBI and the global community of scientists thinking

right the information's out there this is I mean we've talked about this sort of trope before this notion that freeing the information ultimately is a solution right when we when we did strange days that movie which in a lot of ways is quite radical ends with the kind of like grand plan to give the evidence to like the good cop who's going to, you know, get justice within the system. And in a similar way, Keanu's ultimate plan here ends up being, we'll give the information to the FBI and to all these scientists, and that will kind of, that will get us there. but yeah but the conspiracy which is destroying this facility kind of at the very least like restricting or limiting the growth of this technology for the sake of preserving the status

quo as long as possible like that succeeds like Morgan Freeman survives the movie and yeah you know is sort of like yo you know well he kills the capitalist he kills the specific capitalist right or that he gets but but the state the state survives and is is still it is still kind of like okay we're going to put that one on the back burner you know um it's a very it's a very odd especially with the the jerry goldsmith's score it's like it's soaring fiam like oh we've succeeded but when you kind of when you like think about what actually happened it's like no like the conspiracy was it was it was success well he yeah it was Well, he's going to pass it to the media or something.

I don't know. But yeah, it's, yeah, the conspiracy uses of his success. I guess the hope is, well, someday it'll get out there. But, yeah. Yeah, it's a strange, it is a strange movie in that respect. And a little bit of a, of a, ends on a little bit of a down note. Or a little note of like, yeah, I mean, even Morgan Freeman's character is sort of morally, ambiguous in a way that you know we don't see um in a lot of these films are usually much more

good guys and bad guys and he sort of yeah as a as a representation of the government as being like yeah permitting a lot of bad things to happen but but but being like well that's excessive now and then you know trying to manage essentially in concert with private actors, you know, manage the development and rollout of capitalism. Again, maybe not the dumbest movie we've seen in this regard in terms of the way, in these, in its very kind of, you know, action movie, allegorical way, not the worst representation between the relationship. between the state and industry either, you know, which is sometimes it's cooperative and sometimes it's, sometimes it's, uh, it's, it's, it's, um, it's contentious and, and conflictual. So I'm kind of warming up to this movie. I got to tell you. And the,

God, what was the corny thing at the end with the FBI agents? The FBI agents are like, I always like this kid, you know? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And Kevin Dunn. Yeah. Yeah. We're great. I should say great in this. Those are the true right because I like a lot. Yeah, this movie is like way more, way more ideological than I thought when I, I was like, why are the politics here? And now I'm starting to see them. It's like, what if there was a Manhattan project with uncooperative corporations

and you had to, yeah, it's kind of. It is kind of more like politically sophisticated now that I'm starting to go through it. I was like, yeah, this movie is sort of the median action thriller. There's not much, but we get to see a lot of things about the relationship between state and corporations in the U.S., some kind of weird beginnings of class politics in the movie, especially with the FBI agents at the end being like cheering the working class hero. but no revolution happens. The state continues. He drives off in his car. It's almost like liberal American possible outcomes.

Yes, yes. The CIA kind of bad. The corporations, they're bad. The workers and the scientists good. In the end, the good guys, the cops, will side with the workers and the scientists and be like, Iowa is always on your side. The really bad capitalists will get punished. And the state will be like morally,

ambiguous but still like not go for the liquidation of the people who are valuable and nice in society. So it's like a little bit of like it's a different kind of Hollywood liberalism that we've talked about. It's not this idealism of class relations

we've seen in like you know, I don't know in what's his name? God damn it. West Wing. Yeah. Aaron Sork in movies and stuff like that. It's this PMC idealism, which is like the people who work in these things are very good. This movie's like a little bit more of like has some class struggle, you could say, or is cynical about the system and is like

not everybody who's working in this system are good guys, but like it can work out through the way these institutions sort of interact. And things can, you know, the press will help us. And, you know, the state will not allow these people, the evil corporations to completely go out of control. They will, you know, manage that as well. So it's a kind of more cynical liberalism, which I think is, is that characteristic of Davis's movies in general or? I mean, I think so. Yeah, yeah. Think of the fugitive.

Yeah. I mean, the fugitive especially, somebody in the characters are, like, coded as liberal, but are venal and self-involved and self-interested and all that. Right. You know, one thing I think I've just sort of been thinking about is how this movie does sort of posit that, like, a Manhattan Project, you know, you should have alluded to this because of the retrenchment of, government. There are a couple lines in the movie to Congress cutting or funding, right? So the retrenchment of government and kind of like the rise of corporate primacy in society that like a Manhattan project style thing, this sort of massive federal effort to do science on an industrial scale just like isn't possible anymore. It sort of requires, right, a public-private

partnership. Yeah, that's just, that's just an interesting thing to think about. Since the original Manhattan project is, it's very much like it's a New Deal program. Like, it's sort of almost like a paradigmatic New Deal program and that it's executive driven and it involves, it doesn't, it's, it's not like, I mean, the corporate, the corporate corporation, corporate world sort of cooperated, but it, it is the state kind of directing the entire project. It was state first. Yeah. Right, state first. Yeah, and this is like the corporations stymying this development and the CIA or the federal government is kind of like not powerless, but it's power to, it has to work in concert and can't totally be like, no, we can't, you corporations like have less of a say. It's a struggle between the corporate interests and the government interests, which are sometimes in concert, sometimes not in concert.

I think like I really can't get over how they put this this kind of water clean fusion whatever technology in this old factory building because I think it was a lot of anxieties about the time about what America's post-industrial future is going to be like and there was promise of big technological strides like the ones depicting this movie that would make a lot of the issues that arose from a de-industrialized. society um mood and obviously that's not true but uh i think that's a you know that i think that's another theme we've seen all these movies is like utopia deferred or utopia prevented and there's obviously a utopian aspect of a free energy free clean energy source um so i think that this movie doesn't exactly suggest that once the information is freed, it will, everything will turn out okay, but it does suggest that, you know, there is a, there is a bright future with regards to energy, which I don't know that anybody you would ask would say that today. I mean, we have the technology, we have a lot of very good technologies. It's just the problem is

getting them, getting it all going. I mean, I'm a bit more optimistic about it. this stuff sort of like clean energy production worldwide in this country especially is like growing by leaps and bounds okay battery capacity is growing by leaps and bounds like this stuff has gotten so much cheaper so much faster than I think people realized that like there are still major challenges like kind of like reconfiguring the grid to accommodate it like there's like real challenges and there are obviously going to be like you know insane political battles off of making you know bigger in larger leaps. But, like, the clean energy picture actually is, like, much, much, much better than you might think. And, um, in part because there's like a lot of money to make.

There's like a lot of money to make for private industry, which is why, I mean, they conceded this movie, although like I think it very much fits conspiracy thinking, if you just like step back for a moment. Like if this technology actually existed, well, what happened basically is that like the company responsible, like would license it out, would like make a lot of money licensing it out for R&D to like everyone who wanted it. Right. And it would probably require lots of other firms to have to make like it's a big, it would be a big business because like every every firm requires other firms to supply it with parts. Like with if you have a massive machine, a high technology machine, you're going to need dozens, if not hundreds.

of specialist companies to provide it with the parts it needs, you know, like it's a business in itself. So I think not to be like a, you know, I don't believe in the magic of the market, but I do believe that the market is strong enough that it would be very difficult to repress technology for long term because eventually there's just money to, like investment would happen because there would be money to be made from it. The problem with capitalism now is that things that we need, like, infrastructure to be kept up, that's not such a sexy investment for capitalists anymore. They're like, that's not a big enough return, right?

But, like, new technology is going to create a huge speculative boom. And you're not going to have any trouble finding investors to companies who are like, this is an exciting new industry that could change capitalism. That's exactly what people, like, throw money at. You know, it's the harder thing to get people to invest in is like, we need a bridge again. And they're like, no, no, no. We did bridges in the 20s and the 30s. We don't do that anymore.

And then it's just like, there's no money in that. You know, so I think it's like, yeah, new technology genuinely gets a lot of focus, both by the private and the public sector. You know, I think the interesting thing was the vaccine, which was kind of a, which happened very fast and was a public private partnership, kind of shows, to me, as a socialist or someone with those beliefs about the economy and society is like, yeah, man, if you make concerted efforts and coordinate across industries and that's centralized in a certain way, you can do incredible things in very short periods of time. And maybe that's why people are anti-vaxxers. It's a way of being of being like reactionary anti-capitalist anti-social monopoly socialism i don't know that's a that's a

totally speculative theory but and and probably not true but yeah yeah it is an interesting one i mean i i wouldn't i wouldn't i wouldn't say that's solely what it is but that's that is an interesting thought right sort of like the discomfort because so much of the anti this is this this has possibility going completely being deeply deeper alien this conversation we're coming up with our own conspiracy theory. No, but what do you think about sort of the how anti-vax, the rhetoric of the anti-vax movement, which is partly about kind of the safety of the vaccines, but like the safety of the vaccines is tied to, you know, pharma, big pharma wants these profits, you know, big pharma doesn't care about us, so why should we think these vaccines are safe? And it does,

I mean, there is something there, right, to the anti-antivax attitudes being a way of expressing a kind of like discomfort with the influence of these like private institutions over our life and in the influence of those private institutions in our government because this was a big public private um I think it's it's almost the other way around though because I think that if the problem was that the government was too involved right like I think that the I mean it's true some of it is the old fashioned I don't trust the pharma companies but some of it was like I don't want the government to tell me what to do, and I'm skeptical of government involvement. Right.

And the other thing is, is, like, some of the real crazy right-wing propaganda vaccines, I call it, like, vaccine communism, I think, which I think shows a certain phobia about, like, the collective nature, right? Right. I mean, part of the thing about the pandemic and about vaccines is that it's a reminder that we actually are not these, like, totally autonomous. these totally autonomous beings who can venture out without any connections to anyone else around us and we're solely responsible for ourselves like no it's in the nature of a virus that your actions

impact the people around you and vice versa your health and safety depends on that of those around you and so just sort of the nature of the thing is a reminder of how connected we are which for a certain cast of mind is repellent. Right. And it's, I mean, in the way that the vaccine kind of goes under your skin, it threatens bodily autonomy and, you know, there's a, there's a sense of, of all kinds of sense of autonomy and self-direction being lost during the pandemic, which is, you know, it is a crazy thing on a certainly, you know, to be like, you must take the injection, but, you know,

this has been the basis of preventing our society from having horrible illnesses for some time. I mean, I've always thought, I'll just, I'll say, I've always thought some of this is also that people don't like to get shots. Yeah, for sure. They're babies about it. Absolutely. Outta yowie and then they like backfill it elaborate ideology. Yeah, they're like, I don't want to get a shot. The government is going to put a microchip in my ass.

watching taking my kids for flu shots and watching the way they completely melted down I was like I got I got to nip this in the butt I don't want them to go out to be anti-backs just right right right I hated getting shots when I was a kid now I don't give a shit you get to it you get to an age where you're like you feel like I don't I'm not a baby anymore I don't care about getting a shot but some people I guess don't go through that um I'm mature I guess not

I guess not we should we should wrap up this conversation about the movie chain reaction okay uh yeah uh solid it's it's solid you know it's a totally solid movie I the rotten tomatoes rating it's like 18% of rotten tomatoes but like watching this is a perfectly solid and competent 90s tiller and I feel like what is it on rotten tomatoes like 18% that's come on on get get over yourselves this is a fine movie what do you what are you what is better than this something something on netflix that you're watching go to hell uh and i i do feel like it's sort of like you know in people back then people were so uh embarrassment of riches when it comes

to to mid budget thrillers that yeah compared compared to some things that were out maybe not yeah you'll miss it when it's gone um but a perfectly fine movie so yeah i i would say check it out. And it is interesting. Like I found myself sort of like compelled by the whole conspiracy of it, but sort of like there are some ideas there. Yeah. Andrew Davis is not a dumb man. No. I think I think those things were quite intentional. It makes a good thriller. Um, all right. That is our show. If you're not a subscriber, please subscribe. We're available on iTunes, Spotify, and Google Podcasts and wherever else podcast are found. If you subscribe, please leave a rating and a review so people can find the show.

You can reach out to us on social media if you want to. I am, John's still on Twitter, X, whatever it's called. I'm on blue sky if you want to find me there. And I'm also on TikTok and Instagram. The show is on Twitter. Maybe we'll do a more sophisticated social media, you know, presence for the show. But that's like, that's almost like a separate job.

So maybe when I have some downtime or if more of you subscribe to the Patreon, we can pay someone to do it. You could either pay us more money or if you are looking for an internship that's unpaid to run our social media. We can't do that. I think it's illegal. And I would never suggest that somebody work for no money. Yes. Yeah.

I would feel very bad about that in fact. Yeah. In any case, you can also reach out to us over email at unclear and present feedback at fastmail.com. For this week in feedback, we have an email. See, that's what was happening. I was combining the two words. We have an email from Davis that is untitled, but is a response to our most recent episode on A Time to Kill. Davis writes, thanks for another great episode. Just want to note that the liberal effort to blame racism on class, which by me, in this case, he means as per a conversation, like lower class whites, is, as I'm sure you know, a pretty old one, perhaps the classic example of this is to kill a mockingbird. While it's remembered of the story about a brave lawyer standing up for his principles, racial justice, the book's thesis is something closer to white trash do racism, the middle professional class need to stand up to them.

Only when the behavior of the trash is addressed can this south's racial issues be resolved. The furor around ghost out of watchmen and its racist atticus is interesting when viewed through this lens, as it is probably a more realistic portrait of the politics of someone from his time and place in the earlier book. It's sort of funny to think of Mikey Brits' position as a classic of American literature about overcoming racism in light of its class politics.

It's also pretty indicative of how racism would be positioned as a low-class problem for the next 60-odd years. I think this is a very smart observation. And weirdly, I mean, I didn't even think of it when we were watching the movie how this movie is like a weird inversion of To Kill a Markenberg. Yeah. Yeah, it is.

Yeah. I just read, I'm writing me introduction for a new edition of it. I just read Walter Francis White, the executive secretary being the WACP for some time. His first novel, which is called The Fire and the Flint, which is takes place and sort of, and this is actually kind of funny, it takes place in the town that I'm basically, I'm like 90% sure is based off to what my mom grew up in in, in rural South Georgia. And it's chock full of this, right? Sort of like kind of, one of the conceits of the book is that it is the low class, low, you know, poor whites who are the problem of kind of

violent and destructive racism. And although more affluent whites aren't like particularly virtuous, they are, they are more cowards than anything else. If they're cowards and if they can stand up to the poor whites, then there might be some progress. And this notion of violent racism being the providence of people lower on the social totem pole is like false first of all

historically in the presence and pretty shocking gutter racism comes out of class people people of means but it also it feels the notion feels both sort of like

exculpatory on part of elites right like we're not them but also a kind it's like it's a political move as well right to cultivate this idea like you need if you are a guy like walter white you need allies in the white elite class so sort of pandering and saying oh we guys are enlightened yeah you're enlightened you're the one of some of the good ones it's the crackers who are the problem yeah yeah um is is is is a is a strategic yeah Anyway, great email.

Thank you, Davis. Yeah. Interesting and smart observation. Episodes come out roughly every two weeks, and so we'll see you then with an episode on Courage Under Fire, the 1990s legal drama directed by Edwards Wick and starring Denzo Washington, Meg Ryan, Lou Diamond Phillips, and Matt Damon.

Here is a brief plot synopsis. A U.S. Army officer who made a friendly fire mistake that was covered up has been reassigned to a desk job. He is tasked to investigate a female chopper commander's worthiness to be awarded the Medal of Honor. At first, all seems to be in order, but then he begins to notice inconsistencies between the testimonies of the witnesses. I have not seen this.

I saw it a long time ago, but I'm excited to see it again. Yeah, I'm kind of looking forward to this. Courage under fire is available to rent or buy on Amazon and Apple TV, and can be watched on demand if you happen to subscribe to stars. I don't know anyone who does, but if that's you, you can just stream it. uh don't forget our patreon where we watch the films of the cold war and try to unpack them as political and historical documents for five dollars a month you get two bonus episodes every month as well as access to the entire back catalog we're almost two years deep at this point into the patreon so sign up at patreon.com slash unclear pod the you know i say that it's about the cold war but our last episode of our patron was on virtuosity which is 95 but it's part of we're doing a cyberpunk thing so you know very with us. The next episode will be on the Revolutionary

in 1970 political drama directed by Paul Williams and starring John Voight. This is our second John Voight movie. We did the Odessa file earlier this year. Fun movie. Good episode. Check that out by subscribing to Patreon.

All right. That's it for us. For John Gans, I'm Jamal Bowie, and we'll see you next time. You know, I'm going to be able to be.