Love at First Sight

And now for something completely different. Last night I saw The Adjustment Bureau, and it reminded me of a common problem with modern movies. I’m curious to know if others agree. Don’t worry; no spoilers ahead.

The basic premise of the movie is that Matt Damon meets Emily Blunt, falls immediately in love, loses her, and then spends the next several years fighting desperately against the massive and mysterious forces trying to keep them apart. Fine. That’s as good a premise for a movie as any. But for it to work, the audience has to believe that Damon’s character is really, truly, irrevocably in love with Blunt’s. And they have to believe this based on a first meeting that lasts three or four minutes.

You can guess what’s coming next: I didn’t believe it. Maybe Damon and Blunt just didn’t do a good job. Maybe the dialogue in the scene where they first met was unusually clumsy. Maybe it’s close to impossible to pull this off in just a few minutes of screen time, and it’s one of those things you have to accept as a premise without really believing it, like light sabers, or the notion that Katherine Heigl has a hard time attracting men.

But anyway, I’m curious: anyone else feel that movies routinely fail to pull off this kind of first act chemistry these days? Did they really do it better in the past? It seems like they did, but I’m not enough of a movie buff to say so with any conviction. What say ye, commentariat?

UPDATE: And the movie overall? Meh. I’ve seen worse. But you can wait for it on Netflix.

UPDATE 2: And how many movies have now been made from Philip K. Dick novels or short stories? According to his Wikipedia entry, nine. Is that some kind of record?

UPDATE 3: What’s more, according to Wikipedia, there’s a French film based on my favorite Dick novel, Confessions of a Crap Artist. I had no idea. It’s called Barjo in its English-language release. Doesn’t seem to be available from Netflix, though.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.