Bodhi

What’s less necessary than a Point Break remake? A socio-historical discussion of why it might not be such a good idea.

However, this continues with my recent theme of Reactives vs. the Awakening posts, so I’m rolling with it.

Easy stuff first: It’s a 1991 movie set in the then-modern day, with Keanu Reaves’ (1964, Nomad) Johnny Utah up against Patrick Swayze’s (1952, Prophet) Bodhi. Johnny is an FBI agent investigating a group of bank robbers whose cycle of activity strongly suggests they are surfers. The laid-back intense nature boy and the ex-quarterback FBI agent makes for an inherent generational contrast - and c’mon, it’s “Bodhi,” short for “Bodhisattva,” incarnation of the Buddha.  Bodhi is Taking On The Man, as if it’s still 1967.  Except now it’s the Man who is under 30. 

Ultimately, Johnny is defending the status quo, the current social structures, while Bodhi is rebelling against it. A few years earlier, it might have been possible to set up a story making Bodhi an unequivocal good guy. By 1991, though, the thought of bank robber being appealing BECAUSE he was rebelling wouldn’t fly. Even if you wanted to believe in what he said, there was too much knowledge of where these things lead for the lessons to hold. And Bodhi’s philosophizing is inherently loaded with self-justification:  it’s clear that he’s robbing banks not to change the world, but because he thinks it’s fun.

Following on from my previous posts, an important part of the movie is that young Reactives can’t help but find Awakening ideals appealing, at first. Johnny takes up surfing to infiltrate the local surf scene, quickly falling in with Bodhi’s gang.  Surfing becomes his life, until one professional high point is “I caught my first tube today... Sir.” Bodhi starts to become a spiritual guide, his friends a cult, with surfing their sacrament.

(As I said, sometimes we Reactives can’t help being affected. A few of my friends took up surfing largely because of this movie. )

I’m strongly reminded of Captain Ahab and the crew of the Pequod through all this. Bodhi chases waves (and other thrills) like Ahab chases the white whale. Ahab has the crew all drink to the death of Moby Dick, and they respond whole-heartedly, excited by the prospect of a legendary quest and associated riches. While the crew’s fervor is diminished by the time the white whale is sighted, they continue to follow Ahab’s leadership, and it leads them where such things go. One could even say that the final shot of Johnny walking away from both Bodhi and the FBI is a cinematic equivalent of Ishmael’s “...and only I have escaped to tell ye.”

Enough on the old. What is going to be needed in the new? If Gerard Butler (1969, Nomad) is supposed to be Bodhi, now, his foil will presumably be a Millennial born in the early 1980s. He’s still the bad guy, although at least that’s more expected with a Reactive role. But the dynamic is ... what, exactly? More precisely, what sort of interaction works between an older bank-robbing extreme sports nut and a younger law-enforcing jock, if the old guy is unbelievable as a spiritual guru and the young guy is unbelievable as a lone wolf?  I’m thinking that the common thread they would have is a distrust of ideals.  While Bodhi might still spout eastern philosophy, it will be more obvious that he doesn’t believe it. That could be contrasted with Johnny’s initial enthusiasm for being part of law enforcement. By the end, it may be seen as just another cult, little different from Bodhi’s gang.  Which may be able to convince Johnny that being part of Team FBI is itself a problem, not a solution.

It’s an option. For that to work, though, the filmmakers will have to commit to a character who knows he’s a fraud. If they try to redo the same Bodhi as Swayze did, it’s likely to fail because Butler wouldn’t be convincing. If you must remake a movie, you need to be aware of what has changed in the interim.