Something happened to me between my teenage years and, um, let’s say, early 50s. Well, a lot has happened — college, parenthood, grandchildren — but one of the weirdest and most unanticipated was my newfound appreciation of “Top Gun.”
Yes, I’m sure you’ve heard of it, the 1986 U.S. Navy recruitment device — er, make that, No. 1 box office hit, the film that made Tom Cruise a star, right or wrong, forever and ever. That movie came out when I was 16 and still trying to survive high school gym class. Its sequel, “Maverick,” came out this past summer. I am now 52. That is a long time between movies.
I might have been a little too weird and rebellious for “Top Gun” when I was a teenager. I’m not even sure anyone else in my grade really liked it, or had even seen it, but I was intensely aware of it because I absorbed all things related to pop culture.
I was especially familiar with the hit song, “Danger Zone,” which dominated the airwaves in 1986 — and pretty much does to this day. You couldn’t turn on your car stereo without hearing THAT song. So, yeah, I might have gotten a little tired of it.
I didn’t go see “Top Gun” in a theater when I was a teen, though I do recall it landing on home video. I still refused to watch it. (I was a stubborn kid!) I do also seem to recall a certain girl in my grade who hosted a “Top Gun” viewing party at her house one night. I found this out third-hand, as I wasn’t invited. No non-Tom Cruise fans allowed.
I had zero interest in aviation or a career in the military. “Top Gun” gave the Navy such a sexy sheen that young men were lining up to join. Even the film critics Siskel and Ebert noted that the Navy should put enlistment tables up outside the theaters showing the movie — which, I understand, is exactly what happened. If nothing else, the movie, with its positive depiction of service, gave U.S. morale a huge shot in the arm.
This was in the midst of the Reagan administration, just a few years out of the political and economic malaise of the 1970s. Vietnam had not gone especially well for us, and the shadow of Richard Nixon hung over everything. Inflation, the Cold War, the Iran Hostage Crisis, unemployment and dozens of other problems had us in a funk.
Then “Top Gun” hit, and the idea of piloting fighter jets to cool ’80s tunes became part of the solution. At least, for a little while.
I ignored the “Top Gun” wagon train, preferring instead the more realistic depiction of war that was shown in the movie “Platoon,” which came out that same year. Do we need both the shiny all-American patriotism of “Top Gun” and the gritty nihilism of “Platoon”? Yeah, I think our movies do, anyway.
So, what’s so great about “Top Gun”? Well, it’s something I can’t quite put my finger on, except to say that A) it’s exciting, B) it totally rocks, C) it’s a lot of fun and D) it bears no resemblance to reality. It’s not quite a time capsule of the ’80s because it’s beautifully made and stars a man who is still the biggest motion picture star in the world. Which brings us to this year’s “Maverick.”
The sequel could not have come at a better time. Shelved for two years because of the pandemic, “Maverick” makes heroes cool again. Cruise’s character — yep, Maverick — might bend the rules, but he’s constantly risking himself and his career on behalf of a larger goal. Asked whether he knows what will happen to him if he flaunts protocol, he replies, “I know what happens to everyone else if I don’t.”
That’s kind of the whole of his character in just a few words.
The movie made $1 billion as Vladimir Putin was (and still is) waging war against Ukraine and threatening wider global instability. At home, we are grappling with numerous, seemingly existential issues.
I would never have guessed that the sight of Tom Cruise’s Maverick on a motorcycle, racing along to “Danger Zone,” might be the balm or the inspiration we all need right now, but it sorta is.
- Contact Dan Marsh at 662-581-7235 or dmarsh@gwcommonwealth.com.
