Film Ecology 2: Hooper and Human Costs

As with the burning of Atlanta scene in Gone with the Wind, construction and destruction also highlights how Hollywood represents stunt artists and ecology as expendable, an attitude most evident in films like Hooper (1978). In Hooper, the impact of stunts on the stunt artists who perform them is both made transparent and critiqued. The film also shows us the environmental impact of the special effects that accompany each of those stunts, occasionally commenting on their negative effects on ecology. Hooper interrogates the consequences of attitudes that construct human life and the environment as expendable, even as it climaxes with a spectacular and awe-inspiring scene meant to capture audiences: a representation of the destruction of Los Angeles that is parallel to the Atlanta fire scene and residents’ reactions to it in the production of Gone With the Wind. With this special effects-driven scene and others, Hooper shows us how complicated critiques of film production practices become in an industry where entertainment is the goal. Yet, in spite of this conflict between spectacle and critique, Hooper stands out as a film that exposes how dangerous film productions can be to both stunt artists and the environment.

Hooper highlights the impact stunt work has on the stunt men’s bodies while foregrounding the insensitivity of directors willing to sacrifice human lives for spectacular effects in most of the “gags” on display in the film. But the last “gag” in Hooper (and “The Spy Who Laughed at Danger”) most powerfully illustrates how both human lives and ecology are seen as expendable in this filmic world, as long as movies make enough money. Ski’s ideas have inspired the director, according to the film’s producer, Max Burns (John Marley), so he rewrites the script’s ending and adds lots of stunts culminating in the destruction of L.A. on screen. The stunts Roger constructs to end the film seem outlandishly impossible in a 1978 film without access to computer-generated graphics. When Roger explains the new ending to Hooper and Ski, it sounds like a nightmare on screen. According to Roger, Hooper and Ski will drive through “the biggest earthquake ever,” but a bridge will blow up, so Hooper and Ski will need to rappel down the mountain to escape—and Roger will capture this stunt in one shot. The ending stunt sounds spectacular enough, but Ski, the young “immortal,” wants more and suggests, “Why not jump a car across the gorge.” After speculating about the distance a rocket car might jump, even Max thinks this stunt is too risky. But Hooper sees the stunt as a way out of the stunt business: They can do this last stunt for $50,000 each, and then quit.

The big stunt goes as planned: Roger watches from a helicopter and yells, “Action.” Then we hear and see an explosion, and a building collapses. Crashing cars are everywhere. Hooper and Ski keep driving past exploding gas stations and a series of explosions on the road. Cars overturn and collide with one another. Then another series of explosions pours out spectacular fumes of fire and smoke. A tanker goes through a building and another set of explosions cracks open the other side of the road. Hooper and Ski continue driving their rocket car, now racing through a line of collapsing smokestacks that nearly hit their car. They’re almost to the bridge and watch as a truck full of explosives blows it “to shit.” The pressure in their nitrous-powered rocket car seems too low for the jump, but Hooper demands they continue, and they fly across the ravine, landing safely on the other side. This spectacular filmic event destroys the set and looks like it destroys the city of Los Angeles. It nearly kills two stunt men, who barely make it across a ravine in a car built to fly half the distance across. Max fires Tony, the assistant. And Ski and Hooper look at the fallen bridge at the bottom of the ravine in awe. Yet Roger, the director, merely exclaims, “Spectacular, wonderful. I knew you could do it!” As Roger sees it, they have captured a “tiny piece of time” on film, so the stunt, no matter how dangerous or destructive, was worth that strip of film.

Hooper at least marginally critiques the exploitation of human flesh for effect, since it shows us the injuries and chronic physical damage Hooper and Jocko endure after performing risky stunt work. The film’s narrative sets up Roger as a villain willing to sacrifice stunt men for a good show and the film industry as an economy where greed runs rampant. The film gives a nod to both nonhuman nature (a dog with a Humane Society advocate is saved by Hooper) and to the environment (Tony mentions pollution and smog in L.A. as a reason to quickly extinguish a fire). But ultimately, the stunts themselves capture our attention, just as Roger suggests when ruminating on the power of film as a medium that can capture time. In the context of the film, the last, most dangerous, and (consequently) most spectacular stunt also “saves” Hooper, since it provides him with the funds he needs to buy his ranch. The effects in Hooper are not only critiqued in the film’s construction of “The Spy Who Laughed at Danger” but also valorized in their own right. Hooper was nominated for an Academy Award in the sound category. Walter Frith calls the movie “action on laughing gas.” In “Excessive Disclosure in Burt Reynolds’ Star Image,” Jacob Smith sees drunk scenes as “prolonged excuse[s]” for laughter (29). Smith highlights the promotional image for Hooper, an “iconic cowboy with mustache, squinting eyes, and cowboy hat, but with mouth obscured by a pink balloon of bubble gum,” (30) to support his claims about Reynolds’ image as an actor seeking fun, not work, in both film and life.

But the image also showcases the stunt man’s roots in Western lore—cowboys willing to take risks and live isolated lives on the range just like stunt artists sacrificing themselves for spectacular effects on the screen. The film seems to validate that individualist image rather than a communal one connecting humans and nature. Smith asserts that Hooper “ridicules environmental activist and humane society representatives,” those advocates working for nonhuman nature. The film praises the work of individual stunt men willing to take risks, overcome obstacles, and provide awe-inspiring spectacle on the screen. Hooper critiques “the conceited dramatic actor and pretentious director,” according to Smith. It does not seem to critique the work of stunt men. Instead, it valorizes the spectacular results of their stunts. Still Hooper examines the filmmaking process in a unique way, since it highlights stunt men and their work, showing us a behind-the-scenes view of the effects these stunts have on both the stunt artists and the environment. By making the consequences of stunt “gags” transparent, Hooper provides a critical reading of the filmmaking process and its negative effects on its stunt men and the environment their stunts destroy. Even though the critique is couched in the film’s own rhetoric about the entertainment value of spectacle, it provides a space in which we can begin to discuss the impact of filmmaking on both human and nonhuman nature.