There’s a certain universal appeal of disaster scenes in the movies we watch. The gravity and intensity of these situations invoke emotions any can relate to, regardless of their personal experiences with severe weather — in our case, tornados. These stories cause the viewer to consider themselves in light of the peril befalling the characters, to reflect on the tumult and future of their own lives. When done well, it is visceral. When done poorly, it is empty. Here are some reflections on landmark tornado movies and how our personhood informs that watch.
“The Wizard of Oz”
By Cade Kaina
Wind, hail and rain deafen my walls as I write this. In my few years in West Tennessee, this is one of the heaviest storms and threats of tornados that I’ve experienced. I’m thankful for the shelter and home I have — and I’m beginning to wonder if I shouldn’t have reveled so much in Dorothy’s troubles.
Last night, I watched through arguably the most iconic film of all time, “The Wizard of Oz,” and it was even stronger than I remembered. The performances and music feel representative of their time and yet effortlessly timeless.
But of all the elements that should have aged poorly, the special effects and set design in the tornado sequence were far from a sore thumb. The integration of miniatures, projection and practical effects for the storm are still compelling, more than I anticipated. If the aspect ratio were narrowed and the lighting updated to contemporary standards, there’s no doubt in my mind that this sequence could fit well in an entirely new movie. The sound and music sync wonderfully with the chaos as the Plains residents scramble in the wind.
This sequence is legendary because it offered a spectacle never seen before, in a quality never seen before. And “Wizard of Oz” lives on in part because of this. It’s a marvel that something of this caliber was created so early in film history.
And normally, I’m thrilled by this level of moviemaking, but this week’s reflection on film became a little too immersive.
Revisiting Bill Paxton’s 1996 Disaster Thriller “Twister” in the Context of Glenn Powell’s “Twisters“
By Ted Kluck
1996 was the year I got married, got my first apartment and went to a whole bunch of dollar-movies in this skeevy theater in Indianapolis, where the floor was sticky and my wife and I felt like the world was full of possibilities. I am viewing all of this through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia (which I always do). In reality our apartment was crappy, and sometimes we would go to the movie theater just to feel air conditioning, since the lady that ran our complex (shoutout Villa Paree, 62nd and Allisonville Rd.) was old and always cold and wouldn’t throw the Soviet-style AC switch until July. But the world — my world — was, in fact, full of possibilities.
This was also the year that the great Bill Paxton — he of “Twister” and “Tombstone” fame — was still like the 14th guy off the bench in what was the Golden Age of the Male Movie Star. You had Hanks, Costner, Cruise, Pitt, Denzel and Clooney operating at the height of their powers, McConaughey, Kurt Russell and Keanu Reaves coming off the bench as solid “6th man” types, and then guys like Paxton who could occasionally come off the bench and score a whole bunch as “that guy” or, in the case of “Twister,” in the leading-man spot. Leading-man touches were hard to come by, which is why “Twister” was such a fun, extended look at Paxton. In football parlance, he was like a magical season or two of Ryan Fitzpatrick as your team’s starting quarterback. He’s not a franchise guy, he’s not going into the Hall of Fame, but you always liked him.
Here’s my 1996 Paxton scouting report: super kind face, really earnest, could function well as a sacrificial lamb (i.e. the guy who dies first, like in “Tombstone”) and could play a super compelling dad, brother, husband or nice guy who steps up when he needs to.
“Twister” existed in a world where storms were just storms and not yet referendums on Climate Change, which would come soon after. To be clear, the 1996 version of “Twister” was as stupid as the new one. But it was stupidly endearing in that it featured a relationship with something on the line (a marriage on the rocks) and three actors — Paxton, Helen Hunt and a young Phillip Seymour-Hoffman — who could really cook. There were divorce papers in Act One, an incredible steak-and-eggs food scene in Act Two and a mid-tornado reconciliation in Act Three, which is to say, it was everything you wanted from a dumb 1990s action romance. Also, there were flying cows. Most importantly, the actors seemed committed to the relational capital that was on the line in the film, making the tornados almost ancillary (but still cool to look at).
“Twisters” had a poster-worthy quote (“if you feel it, chase it”), Glen Powell’s cheekbones and an AI-grade “story” that left a lot to be desired but proved to be perfect for mid-movie texting and scrolling. Powell is actually right for this cultural moment, in that he is the perfect blank avatar for the Arrogant White Guy Who Learns An Important Life Lesson from a marginalized person. He can have a ten-year run doing this type of thing — if he wants it. And “Twisters” was the perfect role for him, in that he was able to show that despite the awesome truck and shocking cheekbones, there’s a heart-of-gold in there somewhere. Maybe. Over the next decade, Hollywood will “try” Powell in a variety of bad-for-him roles, including buddy comedies, an action franchise and even (sigh) serious stuff … but none of it will be right for him. “Twisters” is right for him.
“A Serious Man“
By Sam Boger
I’ve seen “A Serious Man” two times in the last two months now, and I think I finally understand it a little more. It’s really not a tornado movie at all — apart from the last three minutes and twenty seconds when a tornado suddenly appears, and the movie abruptly ends (spoiler). I won’t tell you why it happens — or even how — but this is, in fact, a movie about storms. It is just not in a physical sense.
“A Serious Man” is a 2009 Coen Brothers film, and it is widely regarded to be not only one of their best but one of the best of the century. I think I’m starting to agree, too, but “No Country For Old Men” sets a pretty high bar.
“A Serious Man” follows a serious man (shocker) who holds his Jewish faith very close to him. But when the storms of life come, he is forced to ask hard questions about what he believes and why these things are happening to him, especially all at once. So, he seeks counsel from every rabbi he can think of — none of whom are really able to tell him anything apart from the fact that he needs to keep trusting God. I’m sure many feel that is a trite answer, but sometimes that is all you can do, especially when you’re in so deep that you can’t even think about the bigger picture.
It’s an interesting film with a really interesting progression. The whole meaning is up for debate — similar to Larry Gopnik’s own questions in the movie — and some would choose to take a really cynical approach here. Even the Coen Brothers would, given the nihilistic themes of all of their movies (despite this, they are still some of my favorite directors). I’d choose to look at this film as one of hope, even if it seemingly doesn’t leave you with much. Some view it as an adaptation of sorts of the book of Job, as both stories revolve around men who lose everything yet still keep their faith in God. This one might not end the way it does in Scripture, but the movie doesn’t really end with any clarity as to what happens at all. And that’s definitely intentional. I don’t know what the Coen Brothers believe, but I do know what I believe. And despite what anyone says, what happens in the film and what happens in our own lives, I think that trusting the Lord — even through the most incomprehensible nonsense — is pretty admirable.
