Una guerra brillante

Thought the casting on Cumberbatch's behalf was odd as he doesn't resemble nor act as you would suspect Edison to act (on the uncharacteristic side). Others in the cast seemed right. I've read where people argued the story-line of the movie vs. actual, and I've done a lot of reading on Edison and Tesla and actually found it very close.. plus the AC vs. DC rivalry with Westinghouse (including electrocution) to be VERY accurate. The story doesn't have a lot of "wow" to it (like a fictitious story would), but considering it based on real-life, it felt right. Oddly, the focus seemed to be heavy on Edison, yet the aspect of the story with Edison/Westinghouse truly MAKING AC work (and the person truly on the "shaft end of the stick") was Tesla!! The characterization of Tesla really left a massive untold story of pure genius receiving the most unfair treatment (though touched upon). YES.. Edison DID tell him he'd pay him a huge amount if he could figure out the problem.. and YES.. Edison did say "he was joking" (as in real life). It mentions Edison's venture into film, but if the film makers wanted to tell a more interesting story about Edison, it might be about his film work and competition with the Lumière brothers (the two brothers who actually were the real leaders of motion pictures. There are horror stories of Edison hiring hit men to show up where people were filming with Lumière film equipment to beat them up and destroy the equipment. Edison is portrayed a bit of a victim in this movie, but it seems that he really was anything BUT that. It seems that whoever wrote the screen play or story didn't know enough about Tesla to really portray him as the real victim he was, nor recognize Edison's very underhanded way of sometimes doing things. The film points out (justifiably) that often people credited with inventions are really just the person getting the last development in (not truly the original inventor). I'd LOVE to see Scorsese do a complete story focused on Tesla. THAT'S the REAL story here!

The reviews for "The Current War" make me tired.

This is NOT the story of Nikolas Tesla. This is, in fact, an accurate depiction of Westinghouse vs. Edison and the AC vs. direct current. As far as what I've read, the story, though a dramatization, is a decent telling of this.

Reviews here say oh, Tesla got the short end of the stick. Yes, he did, and the movie certainly indicates this. And by taking the focus off of him, one certainly sees that yes, he was an unsung hero. But the story is about Westinghouse and Edison fighting for AC vs. DC. If you want to do a story about Tesla, make your own movie. This is NOT about the invention of the AC. Hello.

Another criticism of this film is that Edison is shown as a victim. I don't know if that was the intention, but if it was, they missed. I certainly didn't think he was a victim. Yes, there was a great tragedy in his life, but he was pretty darned ruthless when it came to trying to destroy Westinghouse. Ruthless and unfair. He was that way in many of his business dealings, including going up against the Lumiere brothers in the invention of motion pictures.

I thought the film was beautifully photographed, I liked the music, and I thought some of the dialogue was very beautiful and emotional, particularly the monologues of Tesla and Edison. The acting was superb. And to me anyway it was evident that Tesla got the shaft big time. Except that's not the story.

I found The Current War fascinating, and it made me want to learn more about all three men.

One thing that's always been true - it's never the person who thinks of an invention or even invents something -- the star of the show is ALWAYS the person who commercializes it.

To criticize a film because it's not what you think it should be about, frankly, is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous - people who get their history from movies instead of using them as steppingstones to learn more about the actual story. Elisha Gray invented the telephone. So did Antonio Meucci. So did Johann Philipp Reis. While we're at it, why don't we do a film about Joseph Swan and John Wellington Starr and their work on the lightbulb before Edison. They probably all deserve movies, but they don't belong in this film, which is the story of Westinghouse versus Edison.

In the late 19th century, Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse were the two titans of American innovation. With the country modernizing at a rapid pace, both realized the need for a better way to power society beyond candles and gas.

After some years of development, they both discovered different ways to transmit electric current. Edison stood behind his Direct Current (DC) and Westinghouse championed his Alternating Current (AC). They were similar designs, each with their unique benefits and costs.

But the country wasn't big enough for both of them and only one method could prevail. Out of this situation sprang a fierce competition between the two men, a rivalry labeled "the war of the currents." This war lasted years as they battled endlessly to see whose technology would be the one to forever power and illuminate America.

After having a tumultuous time getting to theaters (that's a whole other story to look up), "The Current War" finally arrives two years after intended.

Directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, the film moves like electricity, zipping from scene to scene. The use of sharp camera work and montages oozes kinetic energy that keeps everything moving at a frantic pace, never ceasing to slow down or end. You're gripped within the race and linked to the main characters as they tirelessly persist to be the one on top.

If you're not a natural history lover, this technique will keep you endlessly entertained without boring you with historical details. If you are a fan of history, this technique will still entertain you, but leave you disappointed as moving the film at the speed of light (or current, for that matter) doesn't allow for deeper learning about the events or people attached to them. Anything that is learned is only surface level as there just isn't enough time to develop any factual depth.

It also doesn't help that these shallow details become increasingly difficult to keep straight, especially as the years go by in minutes and characters are split up into several intertwining storylines.

While a mini-series would be the better way to tell this story, "The Current War" is an exciting way to convey history for the screen.

Just like Gomez-Rejon's use of rapid pacing, writer Michael Mitnick's screenplay is expeditious and Sorkin-like. The rivalry between our two main giants is fierce as they snap dialogue to beat each other in the labs and the presses.

And just like the outcome of the directing, the writing here is entertaining but difficult to follow. Mitnick tries to do too much in too little time as he crams the script to the brim with historical facts. As more information is heaped on, it becomes an information overload that is increasingly impossible to keep straight. By the end, you'll feel like you've read a Wikipedia page and will only be able to remember fragments here and there.

Also, Nikola Tesla shows up in the story and participates in the race. While Tesla does deserve to stand with Edison and Westinghouse in the history books, he doesn't belong in this already overly-stuffed movie.

Starring as the brash Thomas Edison is Benedict Cumberbatch, whose American accent isn't as convincing as one would think. Like most of Cumberbatch's performance, you can see the genius of the character within his speech and mannerisms. Thankfully, the genius he plays here isn't as cold as Sherlock Holmes or Alan Turing. There's some warmth under Edison's surface that you can sense through Cumberbatch's performance.

Michael Shannon plays the opposite of Cumberbatch as he is calmer and calculated in his performance of George Westinghouse. He's the more businessman-like of the two as he carries himself more professionally.

Nicholas Hoult plays Nikola Tesla. Just like Cumberbatch, Hoult's eastern European accent isn't on point, but it's fine enough to pass. Hoult does well at making you see the frustration within Tesla as his brilliant ideas are never allowed to flourish.

Lastly, Tom Holland does supporting work as Edison's secretary. As it was filmed before his star power ballooned from Spider-Man, Holland's role is minor and doesn't give him much to work with.

"The Current War" is the most entertaining and needlessly confusing movie of the year. All the talent involved makes a great effort, but their good intentions just come up short of making a great movie. But it's still quite good and deserves to be seen, even if you'd be hard-pressed to absorb and remember most of what it's trying to teach you.

Filmed between December 2016 and March 2017, when The Current War debuted in a near-completed form at TIFF in September 2017, it was considered a major contender for the 2018 Academy Awards. Scheduled for a prime awards-season release on December 22, and with a number of heavyweight producers (Timur Bekmambetov, Basil Iwanyk, Harvey Weinstein) and executive producers (Martin Scorsese, Bob Weinstein, Steven Zaillian), the film was to be distributed by The Weinstein Company, with Harvey in particular known for his ruthlessly efficient Oscar campaigns. He was overseeing the assemblage of the final cut in October when he was accused of sexual assault and rape by numerous women, and when he abandoned the project, the November release was shelved. Little more was heard of the film until October 2018, when Lantern Entertainment (which had acquired The Weinstein Company's assets) and 13 Films brokered a deal to co-distribute the film internationally in July 2019. Then, in April of this year, 101 Studios announced they would handle a limited release in North America in October, whilst director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon revealed he had re-edited the film, adding five additional scenes but trimming the overall run time by 10 minutes.

So is it worth the wait? Well, it's competently acted, reasonably entertaining, and moderately informative, but...it definitely won't be involved in the 2020 Oscars. It's certainly not as bad as a lot of critics (most of them reviewing the TIFF cut) have made out, but there's no denying that Gomez-Rejon over-directs the whole thing. If you listen to Paul Haggis's commentary track on Alto impacto (2004) he tells a story about a scene which was filmed to begin with an elaborate camera move via a crane transitioning into a dolly shot. In the final film, however, all of that is gone, and Haggis explains that he realised during the edit that the camera moves were unjustified, doing little but drawing attention to themselves. A lot of The Current War's aesthetic draws attention to itself, primarily because Gomez-Rejon's elaborate direction is so out of sync with Michael Mitnick's by-the-numbers script - like a screenplay intended for Michael Bay ended up being directed by Michael Mann. Although make no mistake, Gomez-Rejon is no Mann.

Telling the story of the "war of the currents", the film opens in New Jersey in 1880 as the pioneer of the long-lasting electric light bulb, Thomas Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch proving once again that he can't do an American accent), stages a typically grandiose demonstration of the power of large-scale low-voltage direct current (DC). Meanwhile, George Westinghouse (an characteristically non-psychotic Michael Shannon, the inventor of the railway air brake, begins to consider that the way of the future is in electricity. However, he sees flaws in DC, and so favours high-voltage alternating current (AC), using transformers to step down the voltage. Edison's is the safer of the two systems, but so too is it more expensive, with a limited range compared to AC. The rest of the film takes place over the next 13 years as the two men come into direct conflict in the "race to light America", culminating in 1893 as each attempt to secure the contract for the Chicago World's Fair.

Edison and Westinghouse are opposite examples of the nature of success in an American free-market prospering during a period of immense technological innovation. Edison is aware of and addicted to his celebrity, a visionary enamoured of his own genius, convinced that he and he alone has the mental capacity to achieve success. He's also portrayed as a poor husband and father, and a lousy boss. On the other hand, the more stable, less flamboyant Westinghouse is devoted to his wife, values his collaborators, has no interest in fame, and doesn't even see Edison as competition, believing they should be working together.

The most immediately notable aspect of The Current War, however, is its aesthetic, specifically Gomez-Rejon's direction. Watching the film, I was reminded of Adrian Martin's 1992 article, "Mise-en-scène is dead, or the expressive, the excessive, the technical and the stylish", in which he divides mise-en-scène into three broad categories: classical ("in which there is a definite stylistic restraint at work"), expressive ("general strategies of colour coding, camera viewpoint, sound design and so on enhance or reinforce the general "feel" or meaning of the subject matter"), and mannerist ("performs out of its own trajectories, no longer working unobtrusively at the behest of the fiction"). Whilst I would posit that The Current War lands somewhere between the expressive and mannerist styles, it definitely lies closer to mannerist, rather than the synergy between form and content found in the work of most expressive filmmakers (one of Martin's examples of which is the aforementioned Michael Mann).

Some of Gomez-Rejon's aesthetic choices are definitely justified, arising directly from the content and serving a clear thematic purpose, but a lot are in service of nothing but themselves. An early example of a justified decision is when the camera pans up from Edison's New Jersey demonstration and travels to Westinghouse's Pittsburgh home in what is made to appear a single shot, connecting the two men, not just in terms of geography, but also ideology. Another shot, shooting directly down on Edison's elaborate circular light demonstration, also works well, instantly showing us his ambition and theatricality, plus the effectiveness of the demonstration. Once we reach Pittsburgh, a lengthy single-take shot introduces us to Westinghouse as he weaves his way through a throng of guests at a ball, with virtually everyone trying to catch his attention. This establishes him as a man of influence and considerable reach, but one who abhors the spotlight. In a later scene, Gomez-Rejon shoots Edison and his family in a train carriage using a fisheye lens. With Edison on one seat and his wife and two children facing him, the wide lens distorts the space between them unnaturally, mirroring the important theme of Edison neglecting his family in pursuit of his goals.

On the other hand, some of his choices are extremely hard to rationalise. That this should be important is attested by Thomas Elsaesser and Warren Buckland in their 2002 book, Studying Contemporary American Film: A Guide to Movie Analysis. During their analysis of Martin's tryptic division, they say of the mannerist style, "style is autonomous, for it is not linked to function, but draws attention to itself. In other words, style is not motivated or justified by the subject matter, but is its own justification". This is as apt a description of large portions of The Current War as you're going to find. The plethora of Dutch angles, for example, are more often than not arbitrary. So too the use of split-screen (even splitting the screen into three at one point). Again though, the purpose of the technique is unclear (compare it with something like Réquiem por un sueño (2000), where every use of split-screen is wholly justified). This ripped me out of the film, as I constantly found myself asking, "I wonder why he did that" rather than paying attention to the content.

The handling of the characters is also problematic. Cumberbatch plays Edison as virtually identical to his portrait of Alan Turing in El código enigma (2014); a brilliant, driven, uncompromising innovator who's as difficult to relate to in terms of humanity as he is easy to admire for mental acumen. Elsewhere, the film has a habit of downplaying the supporting characters. Neither Edison's wife Mary (Tuppence Middleton) nor Westinghouse's wife Marguerite (Katherine Waterston) are developed beyond "supportive wife", whilst Edison's assistant, Samuel Insull (Tom Holland) gets just one decent scene. The worst example of this is, however, is Nikola Tesla (Nicholas Hoult), who is very much an afterthought, so under-developed that one wonders if it would have been better to leave him out altogether. This tendency is also found in a postscript which credits Edison, and Edison alone, with the development of the Kinetoscope (one of the first motion picture cameras), without so much as a mention of Louis Le Prince or William Kennedy Dickson.

Nevertheless, as serious as these problems are, I rather enjoyed The Current War, although, granted, that may be because I've always been drawn more to expressive mise-en-scène. It was never going to be the kind of Oscar contender that was obviously intended, but the behind-the-scenes turmoil and the critical mauling are not necessarily indicative of an inherently bad film. Sure, the script is weak in places, and Gomez-Rejon employs every camera trick known to man, more often than not without knowing why. But for all that, it kept me interested, and although I'd never argue it's an especially well-realised historical drama, I did, for the most part, enjoy it.

An upcoming director whose previous film was the indie darling Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, producing work by Russian film heavyweight Timur Bekmambetov and Hollywood legend Martin Scorsese, a cast of some of the most respected talent working today and a true story at its disposal that is loaded with ripe potential, The Current War should have been a contender.

Finished way back in 2017 and scheduled to play out in the awards season period, this one time Harvey Weinstein backed project became an unfortunate victim to the downfall of the big-time producer, given a lifeline years later in what became a low-key cinematic release, anchored down by mediocre reviews that lamented director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon emotion free affair.

To my surprise, The Current War is far from the failure as a product many would have had viewers believe, it surely jams too much content into a brief 100 minute run-time, with Nicholas Hoult's Nicola Tesla given a particular short straw in regards to screen-time and development, but Rejon's energetic direction and constantly moving narrative is never dull and a fine reminder to us all that the technology we take for granted today was at one-time in history a magical invention.

A story that would've been perfectly suited to a mini-series treatment, The Current War examines the life and times of esteemed inventors Tesla, Benedict Cumberbatch's Thomas Edison and Michael Shannon's wealthy businessman George Westinghouse, who all found themselves in the late 1800's competing against one another as humankind discovered the power of electricity, both good and bad.

Throwing us headfirst into the race to light up America and the world, Rejon wastes little time as we find Edison showcasing his significant discovery to an unsuspecting population, with Cumberbatch's finely attuned portrayal of the well-known historical figure one of the highlights of the film and from there we are in the whirlwind of activity as these various men push forward with their ideas and pursuits, often no matter the cost that may be associated with that.

There's some fascinating aspects of this time and movement explored in the film, Edison's reluctance to develop something that may take human lives and Tesla's battles to be taken seriously such elements but nothing is given too much room to breathe by Rejon as he constantly pushes us forward, a reason no doubt why many critics were left unimpressed with a film that stylistically and aesthetically is above average but fails to ignite the heart.

When it comes to the big screen treatment of this subject, The Current War remains one of the more memorable offerings, one that could've been something special but still not the dull mess many would've had us believe it to be.

Final Say -

A solid drama about a fascinating series of subject matters and historical events, The Current War is far from the failure it appeared to be, even if it is unable to become something downright special.

3 1/2 globes out of 5