I do like a good thriller. They're rather rare. What trips most of them up is the third act: the moment that all the plot threads get tidied up and explained away. Come the credits the ground is usually scattered with red herrings that added little, thematically or otherwise, and numerous instances of characters behaving moronically to make sure the plot keeps moving forward. The best thing most thrillers can do is to treat the mystery like the villain in a horror movie: the less you can make out, the less you can see, the more fascinating it is. Once we see it in the cold light of day it's almost always disappointing, plain, and drab. So when you watch a story that not only hangs together, but also engages you, there's a good chance you've experienced something rare. That's how I felt watching Prisoners.
Denis Villeneuve's first english language film is as effectively restrained in its pacing as his last effort (Incendies). Waiting for the answers to Prisoners mysteries is agonising, and that burning desire for an answer will make us complicit in some dark things to come. The story: a pair of young girls disappear just outside their homes, right in broad daylight. In no time at all Alex (Paul Dano) is arrested, and never has a man looked more guilty, all greasy hair, ill-fitting glasses and - worst of all - a parka. But he isn't forthcoming and there's no proof with which to hold him. The man heading up the case, the rather incongruously named Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), is forced to let him go. Keller (Hugh Jackman) - father to one of the girls - knows it was Alex that did it. Or, rather, he 'knows' he did it in that 'my-gut-tells-me-so' fashion. Time is ticking on and the odds of a kidnap victim being found alive after 7 days is... Not good. So Keller kidnaps the supposed kidnapper and begins the task of breaking a man with the IQ of a 10-year-old.
It's a pulpy setup, but it's all so soberly shot (by the ever-brilliant Roger Deakins) and seriously acted that if often feels more like a straight drama than a thriller. Jackman gives his best performance since his criminally overlooked turn in the The Prestige. His coiled rage - at himself for losing his daughter, at everyone else for not finding her - gives every scene an edge of violence, even when he says or does nothing. Gyllenhaal is effective as the Detective, but I'm not sure his tics (particularly his hard blinks) add as much as he thinks they do, but he's never less than watchable. It's unlikely that Dano, as the possible culprit, will ever be better cast, having slowly dialled up his awkward and greasy persona that he first trialled in There Will Be Blood and has since tweaked and built upon (Cowboys & Aliens, Ruby Sparks, Looper).
The one thing that tarnishes the film is how slow Villeneuve makes Gyllenhaal's detective. There's a clue (that we're not supposed to realise is a clue) that we get at the same time as Gyllenhaal, and it's a striking enough visual that you won't forget it. Unless your Gyllenhaal. When another clue crops up that directly links to it (quite obviously), Gyllenhaal does little but blink hard and move on. I had to fight the urge to yell at the screen as if shouting at a would-be murder victim about to be stabbed. For a moment it'll look like he's got it, because how could he not? He's closed every case he's ever had. He's a supercop. But no, he just blinks at it even harder and wonders just what it's all about. Why can't he work it out? Because Villeneuve needs other things to happen first. It's the only moment the plotting slips up.
Also it's unclear what Prisoners is trying to say about vigilantism. Is it condoning Keller's actions? He wrestles with what he's doing, but not all that much. Plus it produces results, of a sort. As a study of a family torn apart and a man on the edge, the film's damn good. As a mystery thriller, it's pretty damn good too. But what it actually has to say thematically, about religion, family, intuition, and many other things besides, is less resonant and well thought out than I might have hoped.
Overall, despite its flaws: 8/10
Ish-Spoilers! (highlight to read):
There's a lot that's unclear, at least on first viewing, but the film's various plot threads just about hang together when you take the time to parse them. The visuals of the snakes and the mazes, Alex and Bob's real backstory (Bob being a sort of red herring, that actually isn't a red herring), are explained so briefly (and hazily) that they can be easily missed. I won't go into the whys and wherefores here, as I think most of you would prefer to work it out for yourselves - if you haven't already. I just thought it'd be worth noting that the film has fewer plot holes than has been suggested. It does have the odd narrative hiccup, but they're slight and do little to mar what is one of the year's better films.
Very Spoilery!
That being said, it was more than a little irksome when Gyllenhaal just walked into the actual kidnapper's house and caught them red handed because they left the door unlocked and suddenly went deaf - somehow failing to hear him knocking and shouting for them.
Oh, and how does Alex have a driver's licence? Or any identification? When he was arrested shouldn't the police have found themselves chasing a false trail of IDs created or bought by Alex's 'Aunt'?
No comments:
Post a Comment