by Nobody really predicted the success of Australian low budget film MAD MAX in 1979. Not only did the film mark Mel Gibson’s breakthrough that led to a successful career. The film was also unique in how it combined dystopian fantasy/science fiction with a fascination for cars and how they both influenced but also shaped the modern world. After two sequels in the 80s, the world changed. The material seemed somewhat dated. In a good way, yet dated. And yet, devoted fans hoped for a new film that was delivered in 2015. MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is different yet again. It’s a slab in the face of environmentalists, eco cyclists and organic food lovers. Not only because action is it’s heart and soul, but also because cars are vital to its premise. This alone makes George Miller’s film important. But then, there’s more here than might be expected at first glance. Not all of it good, though.
MAD MAX was a fresh and surprising film when it came out in 79. Despite its attention to action, car chases in particular, it still concerned itself with character development. Happiness and loss, reactions to the inevitable, a decaying society losing the little morale it still retained after the apocalypse. There was also this fascination with cars and motorcycles. The famous Ford Falcon, sporting one of the last V8 engines packing more punch than anything on the roads. The Interceptor. The post modern cowboy’s horse, despite the more blatant similarity between a horse and a motorcycle. MAD MAX II (1981) and MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (1985) clearly showed a progression in skill, subtleness (a subtext leaving room for interpretation without overlaying any of the action) and character development. But director and writer George Miller apparently found the character Mad Max Rockatansky would be much more powerful if reduced to his hard, brutal core. After ostensibly over a decade of development, FURY ROAD never picked up where the franchise left off. It reinvented not only the character but spawned a whole new genre in film: the (almost) uninterrupted car chase.
Before there was a script to the film, eventually written by Miller in cooperation with Brendan McCarthy and Nico Lathouris, a storyboard was created. Five artists made about 3.500 panels, much like a comic book, showing mostly car action. It is remarkable how the number of panels almost accurately matches that of the film’s final cut. Storyboards weren’t new when Miller deployed this technique. What’s different is how the film was built up from them. And not only from the storyboards that are, to be honest, as brilliant as they’re the outlet of a somewhat wacky mind. The cars were designed by John Gibson, some apparently already started in the early 2000s, way before the storyboards. Hot rods match the post-apocalyptic setting well. At the same time, they’re a transition from the muscle car, incarnated by the polished Australian Ford Falcon. Hot Rods are a design statement. Performance is secondary to looks, so there’s no point wondering if it makes any sense relying on them in a world so hostile to human life as the post-apocalyptic Namibian desert. Miller wanted the film to be understood anywhere without subtitles. The cars already exemplify this. 90 % of the effects are real, making FURY ROAD a “western on wheels” with universal themes. Westerns also work with little dialogue, yet it’s difficult to compare the two.
Maybe Max (Tom Hardy) is the inevitable evolution of the cowboy. Both aren’t always easily figured out. They could be understood as product of their environment, if with virtues enabling them to reshape what made them. But the reality is, while FURY ROAD allows for such interpretations, there’s not really a point spending much time on an academic analysis. This is something new, action over action, with dialogue that feels like it’s included just to break the silence when no engine is roaring. And the plot pretends to be unimportant, yet it’s much bigger than it should’ve been for what Miller seemingly imagined. The plot revolves around people that need to be saved from slavery. From thirst. From hopelessness. This is far from a typical western plot, centered on revenge, greed, a simple job that needs to get done or similar. Accidental or not, the plot to FURY ROAD just doesn’t fit the bill. There’s countless potential scenarios in which all these car chases could’ve taken place without any real meaning attached to them. Just like Miller always claimed FURY ROAD was intended to be.
Out here, everything hurts.
Imperator Furiosa
As unimportant as the plot are the characters in the film. It is true that they’re far more than simple bystanders to two hours of car chase. Again, on purpose or not is beside the point. Good-looking ladies fill the void so it never gets boring looking at the screen. The main antagonist, Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) is as stock and forgettable as they get. Nicholas Hoult is Nux, one of the servants of Joe but despite the fact he’s changing during the plot, Hoult’s talent is wasted here. Known for ABOUT A BOY (2002), WARM BODIES (2013) and other not-so-bad films, Hoult never has the chance to really shine. But the same goes for all the actors in the film, including Tom Hardy, whose Mad Max is, apart from the self-indulgent monologues in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012), not that different from Bane. Or any other hard-assed “character” Hardy ever played. Mel Gibson’s Mad Max had something to lose, lost it, took revenge and lived with the consequences. Hardy’s Mad Max drives a car and rebels against Immortan Joe’s establishment. That’s it, to put it bluntly. And Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa found a part she must’ve enjoyed, being so much tougher and intelligent and powerful than anyone. It is no wonder quarrels between Hardy, Theron and Miller purportedly arose during filming. It’s not that Theron is a bad actress. It’s the fact her ego overshadows every character she could play until little more than Charlize Theron remains. As she kills Furiosa, she also robs her role of any potential meaning.
When the original MAD MAX was filmed in 79, the oil crisis had actually suggested a world that could turn dystopian all of a sudden if things kept on deteriorating. By pointing out the importance of the automobile and the modern culture/lifestyle that had developed following World War II, it was more than an action film. It was genuinely dystopian with a message. While FURY ROAD ostensibly never touches on any of these themes, they’re surprisingly clear. And not even in the subtext. We can only conclude these contradictory statements were made to create just, well, contradiction for its own sake and consequences. This is not to say that set design, costumes, the custom vehicles and the action scenes aren’t good. They are, if not as good as Miller apparently believes. FURY ROAD suffers the same fate all of the furious have before it suffered: the more implausible car action, the less nuanced and more forgettable everything becomes. After the fifteenth collision of cars out in the desert, fresh suddenly gets old. A shorter cut could’ve mitigated the bad effect this has on the film as a whole. But it’s just too much, too shifty, too wacky, but also much too serious. FURY ROAD is good but it doesn’t surpass its predecessors. And to rank it on top of the best action films of all time just doesn’t add up. Despite the effort made to create two hours of car chase, there’s just too much padding, too much boredom, bad dialogue and uninspiring dystopian/utopian fantasies to compensate for it. If there’s anything FURY ROAD fails to be, it’s to be what it claims.
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is not a bad action film. But that’s where it ends. It is worth watching, if only once. And for the car chases only, that is. Anything else would be an overstatement of the powers attested to it by a loyal fan base. What Miller attempted was bold, only he didn’t deliver what he set out to do. Without any context other than a loss of culture attached to it, FURY ROAD falls short in too many ways. Apart from its car chase action scenes, it has absolutely nothing on its predecessor made over three decades before it.
