Firefox By Craig Thomas

Ist ein gelungener Film ,sehenswert

This is a pretty good movie with most of the flying action in the last one-third of the movie. I believe that a lot of this movie is actually a social commentary showing the plight of Jews living in Russia. The point of the movie is not necessarily the theft of a military aircraft, but to show the complete and conscienceless brutality with which Russian Jews are treated. Russian Jews are very likely still treated badly by the Russian government today, so perhaps there is a timeless commentary about this film that still rings true.

Let’s look at Mitchell Gant as a commissioned officer. He doesn’t seem to be a good tactician even if he is a great pilot. He can fly, but he has difficulties ensuring his own safe escape with the stolen aircraft. He easily could have circled back to the air field where he took off from, and fired a missile into the hangar, damaging or destroying the second aircraft and killing many or all of the Generals who had the tools to defeat him. Not to mention wounding or killing the First Secretary. But he doesn’t do this. He should have, in order to secure his own escape, but he doesn’t. Perhaps Gant does not have the killing blood in him. I can understand and sympathize with that. But now we quickly see that Gant is not a good strategist. He just flies off in the blue sky, leaving his opponents alive.

The best character in the entire movie is General Vladimirov. Here is a man able to correctly figure out what Gant is doing, what his intentions are, and what the options are for defeating Gant. It is fascinating to watch Vladimirov deploy his forces as he attempts to destroy the stolen aircraft. He does this even with the First Secretary shouting abuse at him. He very nearly succeeds. If he could have vectored the second aircraft, piloted by Voskov, to Gant’s refueling point soon enough, the outcome might have changed in his favor. Mostly because Gant was too timid to see to the destruction of the second aircraft in the hangar, when he had the chance and there was nothing to stop him.

The ending of this movie is correct for a movie that is intended to be a social statement on the plight of Jews in Russia. This movie is overall less of an action/adventure movie than it is a social and political statement about the terrible future for Jews living in Russia, I hope that the lives of these people are better today, after the Cold War, but I fear not.

As a child, I was impressed by this movie’s setting–the gritty, greasy depiction of the gritty, greasy life in the Soviet Union’s proletariat interior–and the mesmerizing special effects that brought the MiG-31 to life. As an adult, all of this came back to me, with the added awareness of setting, conflict, and dark penumbras.

This is a dark film. So many people die in this movie: the first contact Pavel Upenskoy, the Jew scientists, the Soviet Pilot of the second prototype. Once again, setting is key: this mission is dangerous, death is probable, and failure more than likely. This contrasts with the gala James Bonds movies which (at times) can be life action cartoons, and is a precursor to the high-tension, high-body counts in “24.”

The special effects, thought dated, still hold up. Though they are not as sophisticated 2005’s film “Stealth” or the opening scenes of “Revenge of the Sith,” I could “piece out imperfections with my thoughts . . . And make imaginary puissance.” I’m one of these people who still thrills when Buster Crabbe hops into his obviously model spaceship and blast off form Mongo. Good storytelling can overcome bad special effects, as shown by “Ghostbusters.”

Additionally, this film exemplifies how a book can be faithfully adapted to screen, without damaging the story or the theatrical presentation. Of course, some of the credit goes to the way Craig Thomas wrote the book. It is minimalist character study of Mitchell Gant’s psychodrama within the grim Soviet Union. When Gant sweated, my palms became damp.

Yes, this film is a bit long, but like in “2001,” I think the length added to the setting. The only thing that really could be cut is the bickering of the Soviet Air Marshals and the Premiere. However, that would detract form the setting aspect of the story. We see the hoary heads bang heads as they fumble with the hot potato that Gant has lobbed at them. Picture a cross between the Sith Lords and the Three Stooges, and you capture the tragicomic aspect of this psychothriller.

So, in the light of the Velvet Revolution, is this film relevant? I think so. In 1970, we had a double dose of military nostalgia–“Patton” and “MASH.” In the midst of Vietnam, what did Korea or WWII have to do with anything? In part, it has to do with the common elements of war, warfare, and the warriors. C. S. Lewis spoke of a thought he had while in the service: “This is what Homer wrote about. This is War.”

Similarly, in order to defend life, liberty, and property, (the purpose of the military), we need to inculcate the warriors about the virtue and value of what they are doing. Lewis again has important insight on this issue:

“Those who say that children [or even grownups] must not be frightened may mean two things. They may mean (1) that we must not do anything likely to give the child those haunting, disabling, pathological fears against which ordinary courage is helpless: in fact, phobias. His mind must, if possible, be kept clear of things he can’t bear to think of. Or they may mean (2) that we must try to keep out of his mind the knowledge that he is born into a world of death, violence, wounds, adventure, heroism and cowardice, good and evil.”

“If they mean the first I agree with them: but not if they mean the second. The second would indeed be to give children a false impression and feed them on escapism in the bad sense. There is something ludicrous in the idea of so educating a generation which is born to the . . . atomic bomb. Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.”

Courage is one of the values that this film portrays, not just with accepting the mission, but most epically as Gant deals with his own personal ghosts of Vietnam. In this sense, “Firefox” is about redemption: Gant, unable to save one Vietnamese girl, is able to save millions of lives by stealing the Firefox and to restore a balance of power between the two nations.

The other part has to do with aesthetics: this is a roping good spy and techno-thriller, and when we are done, we recognize that we have seen a marvelous tale told well. And that is the hallmark of any good story.

Hard to believe those effects were made without modern CGI. Good Eastwood flick.

Clintan !