Why I Hate 'Top Gun'

Tom Cruise. The End.

Not really, but…yes. For what it's worth my opinion of the man is that he's hugely overrated and annoying. Totally undeserving of his cinematic stature - yes that was a height joke, cheap and cruel but I'm sure he'll get over it (once you start with them it is really difficult to stop).

Anyhee, the main reason I hate - and I do mean hate - Top Gun (Tony Scott, 1986) is that it encapsulates everything wrong with the 80s and human nature. A mishmash of

GO ME!

hair gel, Reaganomics/Thatcherism and narcissism. It oozes the specific level of bile inducing self confidence required to wear day-glo spandex and leg warmers. A celebration of egotism, greed, self promotion, and aggressive career climbing - step on/use anyone. "Too aggressive. Yeah, I guess when I see something I go right after it." Maverick says that in an attempt to woo a lady … yeah, I'm not even going near the potentially problematic juxtaposition of aggression and sex, coupled with his rampant focus on himself as presumably endearing qualities portrayed by our 'hero'. This type of individualism is not a positive thing, although individualism can be in the right circumstances and approached in the right way, it is a bastardisation of the American Dream that keeps everyone down; the only thing that stands in the way of your success is you? Or, more like, the only thing that stands in the way of your success is every other bugger so fuck 'em! 

Now I'm Scottish so Reaganomics didn't really directly affect me, although it couldn't have helped anything, but Thatcherism did; Thatcherism kicked my family square in its metaphorical nuts, and there are many correlations between the two thug doctrines: the reduction of state, the importance of the individual in their own success, and the extolment of a free market economy. As Thatcher herself wrote:

'As I see it, they [the government] are primarily to establish a clear, simple and rigorously enforced system of rules to be both imposed and obeyed by the state, within which individuals can pursue their own legitimate private ends; and, within that framework, to secure, by generous but discriminating public aid, that no one is allowed to fall below a tolerable limit of welfare or is deprived of the chance of developing his or her talents to the full' (Daily Telegraph, 1978)

That full article is available here and worth a look even just to see how many times God and Christianity can be crammed into a political statement. Individuals are highlighted and their motivation and need to pursue their own goals without interference by a 'discriminating' society predicated on subjective levels of acceptable social status; what is 'legitimate' or 'tolerable' or 'generous' is open to interpretation. While it can sound like a very positive use of language, the adjectives used are not qualified and so are subjective, wholly dependent on the political viewpoint of the person(s) that decides what is 'legitimate' or 'tolerable' or 'generous'. Please remember too that this statement is written by the person who famously, or infamously, said that "there is no such thing as society. ...people must look after themselves first." (1987)

Top Gun vomits exactly this kind of insidious worldview into my eyes and ears and doesn't so much as offer me a cotton bud to clean up. The ideology of the individual, of greed and self promotion as a valued trait for human beings; a requirement for our advancement and survival. Dr. Adrian Furnham (The Sunday Times, 2013) looked at the psychology of Thatcherism and notes that a 'good Thatcherite' has 'energy', 'determination' and 'a strong belief in his or her cause'. They also have a 'moral certainty' and are 'a bully' and 'an individual, not a team player' - that's Maverick in a nutshell!

Knob Theory 101

Look at how he stands, in front of his best friend, Goose. In a moment of what is supposed to be humility. He determinedly insists 'That will never happen again', while arrogantly looming over his friend, threatening him with his unfettered cock. Ultimately Goose acquiesces and says, deflated, "I know" (I'm guessing more just to get out of there after the potential horror he just witnessed but...y'know), he has no choice or power in this situation, he sits in the back of the plane, Maverick steers/flies/drives - whatever. Goose is just along for the ride. Goose is weak. He's a family man and while this is useful and even desirable in a conservative, christian fundamental idea of 'society', the existence of which aside, they are weak because they are reliant on each other; they are a team. It might be something to be done in later life but Goose bought into that lifestyle too soon, he needed to be all manly and piss over everything before putting a woman in her place, Maverick will have Charlie (Kelly McGillis) pregnant, back in the kitchen, and no longer pursuing her career at some point, but only when he's done what he came here to do. She hasn't got a hope in hell of success anyway, given the lack of a cock to swing around a shower room, so what's the point?

It's a'right hen, I've got ye. Where's yer blouse?

Look at how she clings to him as he stands proud, and at full height I'm guessing by how much Kelly has scooched down, we can only pray he's put his trousers back on.

Maverick will be successful and strongly contribute to society, or whatever the equivalent for the collective is in this world, thanks to his drive and 'wanted it more' attitude, unlike the unaspiring Goose and his pathetic, parasitic little family. Maverick will help look after them because of his 'generous' but 'discriminating' social conscience and after all they're not drug addicts, or unemployed or heaven forbid immigrants or black (almost no one is in this film). Goose is the one thing I come close to liking and he is treated woefully.

"Ah pure love volleyball man!"

Goose dies (is it too late to say spoiler?) he has to, he was not made for this world - he can't even bring himself to take his t-shirt off like the rest of them when playing volleyball like a big bastard man should! This scene, like all conservative, hyper-masculine representations of what 'real men' are like, is a fabulous, unintentionally homoerotic spectacle. I mean look at it! 'Fly into the Danger Zone' indeed.

But I digress...a bit. Goose dies and Maverick blames himself, he feels guilty. Maverick's guilt robs him of his previously indefatigable self confidence, it steals his once single minded drive. 'Ahhhhh" I hear you cry "What's this? Humanity? Surely this kicks the chair from your bitter argument and leaves its legs twitching as the noose of reason chokes it of its final breath?" Well, no. I don't think so because nobody else blames him, because even his guilt and sadness are self indulgent; Goose's death is all about him. These things happen everybody tells him - except for Iceman but he's a prick - "You fly jets long enough, something like this happens." Tom Skerritt's Viper coldly informs him and Maverick's response? "He was my R.I.O. My responsibility" not friend, not brother - responsibility, a noun that suggests power and control. Everyone rallies round Maverick, not Goose's wife or child who incidentally also want the old Maverick back. Folk tell him to suck it up. They all but beg him to become the kind of man he once was. So he does and he succeeds. 

The next stage in this world is, if you succeed in your individual struggle against...well, everyone else around you, you will then conform. He's no Maverick he just wants to be at the top and then he'll do what it takes to stay there. All his showboating and individualism was only to beat the others around him not those above him; he'll play for the team when he's the captain of the team. Now he's in the lofty position he sought and able to spot others like him and so continue the cycle.

Steely cold stare and an erect thumb.

If you've made it this far thank you - see this is why I love the blog chatter. Face-to-face, by the time I mentioned Reganomics and stopped making height jokes, I would politely be asked to 'fuck up' and told that 'it's just a film', 'it's just a bit of fun.' But films like this are exactly what we should examine, and examine them closely, for the ideological imperatives that may lie behind them are often passively absorbed and repeated - even by filmmakers. I'm not saying that director Tony Scott and writers Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. are up to anything - I don't, and never will, know them, Tony Scott sadly died last year, I'm not a fan but I don't wish any harm, and so their politics will remain a mystery to me but that is not to say that they haven't themselves just observed and regurgitated some potentially problematic ideologies of the times. Raymond Williams said:

Art reflects its society and works its social character through its reality in experience. …if we compare art with its society, we find a series of connextions with the rest of the general life. We find description, discussion, exposition through plot and experience of the social character. We find also, in certain forms and devices, evidence of deadlocks and unsolved problems of the society: often admitted to consciousness for the first time in this way. (The Long Revolution, 1961:86)

Society does exist, I believe that, and it reflects and replicates, problems percolate and often are not dealt with in any meaningful way and can ultimately become part of the psyche. It is helpful, healthy - fuck that - necessary to question things and as a general rule if Tom Cruise is in it ask 'why?'. J