Jon Turteltaub’s National Treasure is a beautiful con job, an engaging cross-country jaunt of conspiratorial whimsy. Seamlessly mixing historical fact with utter bullshit, it is both deeply implausible and surprisingly entertaining.
The movie opens in 1974 as a young boy goes up to the attic one night trying to investigate something he shouldn’t. His grandfather (the delightful Christopher Plummer) catches him and wonders what the hell he’s doing. Ultimately, however, he feeds his already insatiable curiosity by telling him everything he knows about the long history of a secret treasure and its final connection to America’s Founding Fathers.
40 years later, that inspired young boy grows up to be Nicolas Cage whose childhood intrigue has grown into full-blown obsession. (If my math is good, he’s the fourth generation male in his family to pursue this.) He’s on the verge of making a major breakthrough in his ongoing search for that elusive fortune, thanks to major funding from a very charismatic, blond-haired Sean Bean. Years of investigation and code cracking have led him to the Arctic Circle where him and his team find an old ship called the Charlotte buried under tons of snow.
Once inside, they seemingly hit a dead end. There appears to be nothing but dead skeletons, hammocks and barrels full of gunpowder in there. But wait! Some cheeky fellow has hidden something in one of them, a rather intricately carved meerschaum pipe that, as it turns out, is integral to finding the treasure.
There’s also a riddle which Cage solves rather quickly. And that’s when Mr. Bean turns heel. Since Cage determines that the Declaration of Independence has a treasure map on its reverse side (a wild hypothesis he most definitely needs to confirm), Bean declares he will steal it. (It turns out he has experience with heists.) Cage is appalled by this and wants nothing to do with his crackpot scheme. Out comes the handgun and now we have a stand-off.
A desperate Cage lights a flare and long story short, when it’s accidentally dropped, everyone bolts and it’s good-bye Charlotte.
Along with his quick-witted, tech-savvy sidekick Justin Bartha, Cage returns to D.C. to try to warn the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security about Mr. Bean’s diabolical forthcoming heist. Knowing his family’s history, though, no one takes him seriously, not even the beautiful Diane Kruger, a bigwig at the National Archives. (In her case, he actually uses a fake name hoping in vain for a more supportive response.)
Despite her skepticism, though, Cage makes a connection with her regarding her treasured collection of George Washington campaign buttons. She only needs one more to complete the set and he just so happens to have the missing button at home. Score one for the nerds.
Realizing he has to steal the DOI in order to save it, he conjures up a plan that depends very highly on lax governmental security, weak passwords, the full support of the initially reluctant Bartha and a whole lot of luck. As admittedly clever as it sounds in theory, there’s no fucking way it could work in real-life. The restoration room surely isn’t left this unguarded in the real National Archives, even during special public events.
While waiting for his meeting with Kruger, Cage peruses a brochure for the NA’s upcoming 70th Anniversary gala. He correctly figures that Bean will make a play for the DOI document that night so his hope is to grab it first. But there’s a big problem. He’s not on the gala guest list.
No worries. Thanks to technology and a really out-of-it security guard, he’s let in as a fake maintenance guy and then, after a quick change in the can, Cage is able to blend in with the actual invited guests dressed to the nines. He once again encounters Kruger and it’s clear something is stirring between them. Still, that doesn’t stop her from asking someone if he’s even on the guest list.
Meanwhile, Bean & his band of burglars arrive on the scene, so the race is on.
This sequence alone is one of the many reasons why National Treasure, for all its improbabilities, is such cheeky fun. Skillfully plotted, acted and directed, it’s far more thrilling than the Ocean’s Eleven remake. We hope Cage gets to that restoration room where the protected DOI is waiting to be freed long before Bean & his thieving comrades get there.
A thoroughly predictable plot twist (that I still thoroughly enjoyed) sees Cage, Bartha and an understandably pissed off Kruger band together when the original plan inevitably goes awry. (Should’ve brought more cash, Cage.) After some expected bickering (why does Kruger have to shut up, exactly?) they end up at Jon Voight’s house and let’s just say he’s not too thrilled to see his son Nick Cage. (Amusingly, he thinks he knocked up Kruger.) A longtime skeptic of the treasure hunt, our heroes are crushed to learn that some crucial letters he once had have since been donated to a museum in Philadelphia.
After confirming the DOI treasure map theory and getting an important clue, it’s off to look at those letters. But Bean and his goons are there as well, and they’re not stupid. A careful examination of the displayed historical documents leads to the acquisition of an important piece of equipment. Cage, Bartha and Kruger have little time to savour their progress, though, as the heels close in on them. The chase is on so they split up.
Unfortunately, Kruger and Bartha, through a rather avoidable contrivance, lose the DOI to Bean, and Cage gets nabbed by FBI agent Harvey Keitel who is determined to put him in prison for a very long time.
Right from the beginning, National Treasure has to immediately hook you. That’s why the first scene is the most important, so crucial to its overall success. With its promise of a big pay-off once this long lost treasure trove is finally unveiled, if the five-minute backstory setting it all up isn’t compelling to start with, then the next two hours and five minutes will feel a lot longer than they should. Thankfully, Christopher Plummer is an excellent salesman and Cage is a supremely zen hero with equally likeable allies. Their obsession becomes our own.
Our patience is thankfully rewarded with an ending that would feel right at home in an Indiana Jones movie, not an easy feat for a PG-rated Disney flick with no intense violence or overly elaborate special effects that lead us to that moment. (The bloodless action sequences are, for the most part, well executed, especially the church scene in the third act.)
National Treasure is smart enough to recognize it can’t be taken too seriously so its preposterousness is wholly embraced by mostly well-timed quips and frequent skepticism from a very funny Jon Voight who is constantly annoyed by the seemingly endless amount of clues set up by the forefathers to protect their historic treasure. (They wisely believed the massive collection shouldn’t be owned by any one person, especially kings & tyrants.)
Cage & Kruger have a nice chemistry, mainly because they have so much in common. Equally fascinated with American history & antique artifacts, despite her early attempt to flee (because she’s worried about getting shitcanned from the National Archives), once she sees for herself that Cage was right with his hunch, she’s all in. From the second they meet, the movie establishes them as intelligent equals, especially when it comes to their dating histories.
As for the villainous Bean, one wonders if he would really fall for Voight’s deception considering he, too, is as smart as Cage. (They always seem to be in the same place at the same time for the exact same reason.) Regardless, his dialed-down performance is effective, despite his level of cruelty being greatly limited by the PG rating. From the moment he turns on Cage in the Arctic Circle, we want him to fail.
National Treasure may have divided critics during its profitable 2004 theatrical run but I had too good a time to dismiss it like an arthouse snob. I liked the cast, I laughed at most of the jokes, I enjoyed most of the action and I fell for its fantastical story.
You got me, Jerry Bruckheimer. You fucking got me.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Saturday, August 29, 2015
5:11 p.m.
Why Did The National Post Secretly Cut Parts Of Margaret Atwood’s “Hair” Column?
Earlier today, The National Post published this piece from legendary Canadian author Margaret Atwood. (It’s well worth reading.) In the midst of poking fun at the Conservative government’s relentless fixation on Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s “nice hair” (because that’s the only nice thing they can say about him), Atwood makes some serious points about Prime Minister Stephen Harper: how he wastes taxpayer’s money on his personal appearance; his party’s history of vicious, personal attack ads; his secret benefactors; and, of course, his role in the Mike Duffy scandal.
But just hours after the piece first surfaced, it was mysteriously yanked from the website. (For a time, you could only access the Google cache version.) This did not go unnoticed online.
Then, just as mysteriously, the piece returned. Unfortunately, changes have been made, changes that have not been acknowledged by the Post at all. (According to Buzzfeed, it was “management” who demanded these changes, not the editorial department.)
So, what’s different about the reposted “hair” column? All told, not much, with the exception of a few suspicious deletions & one curious addition in its second half.
The first change comes in paragraph 11. It originally began thusly:
“Next: Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for the micromanagement of Harper’s hair?”
Now it reads:
“Next: Why should the taxpayer foot the bill, even in part [my emphasis], for the micromanagement of Harper’s hair?”
The first deletion occurs four paragraphs later. Paragraph 15 begins the same way in both versions:
“Don’t go there, Cons! Because then we’ll all start thinking about ‘hiding.'”
These next two sentences are not in the revised posting:
“Why is Harper still coyly hiding the 2-million-dollar donors to his party leadership race? Don’t we have a right to know who put him in there? Who’s he working for, them or us? [my emphasis]”
Instead, paragraph 16 from the original version begins right where the second line of paragraph 15 left off. But then, this line, the second-to-last from the original paragraph 16, has been excised:
“In his [meaning Harper] earlier quoted comment, ‘I don’t care what they say,’ who are they? [my emphasis]”
The last line of that paragraph – “Aren’t you agog to know if you’re on Harper’s hidden ‘enemies list’? – remains intact.
Moving on to paragraph 17. The final omission occurs at the end. These two lines are missing from the revised posting:
“[Regarding Harper’s reaction to the Duffy scandal] He’s given four mutually exclusive answers so far. Is there a hidden real answer? [my emphasis]”
All that’s left of the second-to-last paragraph is this line from the original:
“Why is he hiding what he knew about the Duffy cover-up, and when he knew it?”
Both versions end with the same line in a separate paragraph:
“And if he’s hiding all this, what else is he hiding?”
So, has there been any explanation from the Post about why they felt the need to post the piece, disappear it for a time and then repost it with these changes without notifying readers at all?
Gerry Nott, the vice-president of Postmedia, the parent company of The National Post, told The Toronto Star, “The column was taken down because the necessary fact checking had not been completed…Senior editorial leadership at Postmedia also had not concluded whether the column was aligned with the values of the National Post and its readers.”
This sounds like bullshit. If Buzzfeed’s reporting is correct and management demanded these changes, and not the editorial department, then fact checking isn’t the problem. It’s political embarrassment. It’s no secret that the Post, founded by ex-con Conrad Black, has always been a right-wing newspaper, like its tabloid competitor, The Toronto Sun. Are the paper’s meddling managers planning to urge the editorial board to endorse Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a Conservative, for reelection in the coming weeks as we approach the October election date? Is this why the Atwood column lost four significant lines just hours after it was first posted without incident?
It’s also no secret that the Post remains a money loser. Who knows how much more financial hemorrhaging it can take after nearly 20 years in business.
Regardless, this looks bad, really bad. I mean if there really were mistakes made that weren’t caught before the “hair” column was first posted, obviously correcting them as quickly as possible (with an added note acknowledging such changes) is imperative. But there weren’t any mistakes, none that I can see, anyway. Instead, we get this somewhat sanitized version of Atwood’s work (which apparently first appeared on Walrus Magazine’s official site before the Post reposted) with no explanation whatsoever. That’s not acceptable.
The Post needs to immediately address its readers and explain why the above-noted changes I laid out were made in the first place. Whether we will accept their reasoning, if they even address this at all, remains an open question.
As for Atwood, the controversy has done nothing but helped her piece. As I write this, #hairgate (terrible name) is trending at number three on Twitter.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Saturday, August 22, 2015
12:44 a.m.
UPDATE: Unbeknownst to me, hours before this was posted, Toronto journalist Jonathan Goldsbie had already noted all the differences between the two columns as I eventually did on Twitter. Meanwhile, Canadaland reporter Jesse Brown has an excellent story on how Postmedia VP Gerry Nott played a major role in the censorship of Atwood’s now widely read piece. He asks several pointed questions about why it ever happened in the first place. We’ll see if he gets any good answers.
Additionally, he reveals that contrary to what Nott told The Star, the “hair” column was properly edited and vetted before its first posting on The Post’s website. Nott ordered the changes made without first notifying Atwood. Brown also notes an additional change made before the column’s original publication:
“…a reference to Harper’s ‘enemy stakeholders list’ was changed to ‘enemies list.'”
Unlike the post-publication alterations made when the original column was pulled, Atwood approved the edit. You can read Brown’s full story here.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Saturday, August 22, 2015
3:43 p.m.