Lucy: A Discussion About The Scarlett Johansson Movie
Brent and Nick break down Luc Besson's latest.
Luc Besson’s gonzo sci-fi actioner Lucy largely got lost in the shuffle when it first released. While we were swamped with nerdy breaking news out of San Diego Comic-Con, this Scarlett Johansson-fronted bit of mayhem topped the box office race, earning more than $40 million and slapping Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s Hercules across the face.
The film also divided critics and audiences down a sharp line. Some absolutely adored the level of utter insanity, while others dismissed it as nonsensical trash. And to be honest, it somehow manages to fall into both categories, which is part of the magic. If nothing else, there is a great deal in Lucy worth talking about.
Two GFR experts got together to discuss our takes on the wave of chaos Besson and company unleashed on the unsuspecting world, and to figure out what drugs we would most like to be on when we sit down and watch this again.
Opening Remarks
Brent: What are you initial thoughts on Lucy? What did you expect going in, what did you see, and what did you walk away with?
Nick: As with all of Besson’s projects, I went in expecting to be bum-rushed by insanity, and I STILL managed to walk away completely surprised. In part by its stupidity, but mostly because it went for everything all at once all the time. Never has 90 minutes flown by so quickly. I feel I will use this movie when exercising, to make the time zip by.
Brent: I’m in a similar boat, expectations-wise. I’ve been watching Besson movies since La Femme Nikita in 1990, and I was expecting his usual fare. Stylized action may not be the greatest plot, story, or acting.
Essentially, Lucy is a pretty standard action flick with a touch of madness thrown in. And while that’s definitely all there, he introduced some sheer, batshit insanity into the mix, just for the hell of it. I was impressed by the audacity of the film, not to mention the weird, pseudo-intellectual, kind of wants to be 2001: A Space Odyssey moments.
And it may be crazy, but Lucy is also a ton of fun. In most cases I can see how people either love or hate a movie, but especially with Lucy.
Nick: I didn’t get 2001 vibes, and I feel lucky. I agree that it shot for pseudo-intellectual, but the absolute worst kind. It didn’t take me out of Lucy like it would have for a more serious flick, but it was paired with the most phoned-in performance of Morgan Freeman’s career. I think this movie doesn’t just have lunacy, but it NEEDS lunacy.
Brent: The lunacy definitely saved Lucy from being generic and probably terrible. Without the mayhem, you would have just been like, wait, that brain thing is total bullshit.
Nick: Exactly. I’m pretty sure had I taken a drink every time Freeman said “cerebral capacity,” I’d have been laid out by the second act.
And it wasn’t reassuring in the beginning when Besson began inserting his on-the-nose metaphors into the action, but I actually wanted more of it as the film went on, even though those shots eventually became “watching the Big Bang.” I guess you can’t really top that.
How Does Lucy Fit Into Johansson’s Career?
Brent: I have generally mixed feelings on her career, to be honest, it really varies project to project. I liked her in movies like Ghost World and a few others (I hated Lost in Translation). I wouldn’t go see a movie just because she’s in it, but I wouldn’t sit one out either.
Though I’ve warmed to her more lately, in large part due to the evolution of Black Widow. Initially, I really disliked the character and her performance in Iron Man 2.
She was boring and didn’t have a lot going on, and though I’ve read Black Widow comics for years, none of that carried over to the movie. That all changed, however, with what she did in The Avengers, working with Joss Whedon. All of a sudden, you’re like, “Holy shit, this character is amazing,” and that continues into Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
If nothing else, I like the wide variety she consistently brings to her career choices. She’ll do big blockbuster Marvel movies but then turn around and so few indie things that no one will see, like Under the Skin, and be really good in both. And I love that people are going to walk into Lucy thinking it’s a Scarlett Johansson action movie, only to get some crazy nonsense flung in their faces.
To me, Lucy feels like a big star doing something that was fun as shit, primarily because she knew going it that it was going to be fun as shit.
Her Lucy performance isn’t spectacular. She does as good a job with what’s here as she can, but the smarter she gets, the more reserved, cold, and emotionless she becomes. When the character is supposed to be flat and removed, it’s hard to bring a lot of nuance to a performance.
Even with the action there’s not much asked of her. Eventually, as her brain expands, she doesn’t even have to fight anyone, she just stands back and flings people around like she’s a Jedi using the Force.
Nick: It’s hard because Lucy is not entirely an action movie, and it isn’t entirely Johansson’s movie, since she becomes an all-powerful robot when she’s zooming along on her weird drug run. I like her in most things, even if I don’t like the movie she’s in, and she’s probably as good here as one could hope. But Besson has pretty much nailed casting in all of his movies anyway.
Lucy’s Dwindling Humanity
Nick: There’s a weird connotation between Lucy’s becoming one with the world and her becoming colder as a character. Why would utilizing one’s humanity to the fullest turn one into what is essentially a machine?
Brent: That’s a strange undercurrent. The more of her brain she can access through these synthetic means, the less human she will be. Is it because of the synthetic nature of the drugs, or is the implication that nature never intended us to use that much of our mental capacity, thus accessing it somehow sets us apart from nature?
Nick: It’s like trying to figure out whether a dog prefers algebra or calculus. It doesn’t matter because it isn’t based on reality. We do use as much of our brains as we’re capable, and we’re pretty good about being human with it.
Gaps in the (Il)Logic
Brent: There is a random, haphazard feel to Lucy that I couldn’t shake. For me, as much fun as it was (despite giant, glaring flaws), there was never much in the way of a goal for the main character. She hurtles through this movie at breakneck speed, but for what? Everything is random.
Like that big car chase through the streets of Paris. You can’t even really call it a car chase, because no one is chasing them. She’s just in a hurry. She wants to get the rest of the drugs so she can get to 100% of her brain capacity, but that’s really it.
At least Choi Min-sik’s Lucy character, the main villain, I understand his motivation. He wants his drugs back so he can sell them and make money. What’s her motivation, what’s her end game? Or am I asking sensible questions about a nonsensical movie?
Nick: And why is this drug even on the street? Who is buying it? It turned that one guy into a giggling buffoon, yet Lucy gets an even bigger dose pumped into her bloodstream, and she becomes a super human.
And still, I was perfectly happy going with that dumb plot to see what she would do, because she could do ANYTHING! That’s part of the joy in watching this over something like Godzilla, because we’re all perfectly aware of Godzilla’s limited power base.
Even Batman’s utility belt runs out. But Lucy doesn’t bother with things like “limits” and “impracticalities.” Which is also what made that Lucy car non-chase scene so cool, because the only thing we really had to pay attention to was her making physics her bitch.
Brent: It’s like the movie’s logic is in its lack of logic. Like every time they ran into a roadblock, they had this magic, get out of jail-free card. They hit a wall and flash another card on the screen telling you how much more brainpower Lucy just acquired and she can leap over any hurdle.
It’s like leveling up in a video game. They just invent their own way around anything that gets in front of them. That’s kind of genius
Nick: Which doesn’t make for a good movie in the least, but Lucy manages to bypass “good” and becomes a “great” movies at times.
Lucy Supporting Players
Nick: I really, really wish Freeman and those other “scientists” weren’t in this movie.
Brent: Agreed, they are by far the weak link. You know, Besson included them to give an air of authority and fact to his bullshit science as they went through their Rolodex looking for someone people believe and landed on Morgan Freeman.
“He’ll take a check and let us borrow that deep, authoritative tone.” But all those scenes do is take up time and screw up the flow. The only times the pace slows down are during those scenes.
Nick: Especially in the beginning, as Lucy’s life is happening and Freeman is quasi-narrating. What’s weird though, is that he stumbles over his words a few times, stuttering when he shouldn’t. If I’m going to get yet another Morgan Freeman-knows-all role, he’d better damned well be filmed nailing the lines.
Brent: He’s barely even phoning it in.
Nick: Even though there’s technically no real reason why this film took place in Taiwan[Ed. Besson said he chose the location because he filmed part of The Fifth Element there and always wanted a reason to go back], I’m glad that it gave them a chance to use Oldboy‘s Choi Min-sik as an unintelligible and impulsive villain. It didn’t matter that he barely speaks, English or anything else. He speaks bloodthirst.
Brent: His Lucy introduction is super badass. White suit, splattered with blood, looking bored with whatever horrible things he just did to another person. He doesn’t need to talk, he just has a threatening presence onscreen, an animal, visceral menace.
