Skip to main content

Some very nasty things live under rocks, especially in foreign gardens.


The Constant Gardener
(2005)

A not-quite-great John Le Carré adaptation, but one that confirms that filmmaker’s have been consistently much more astutely than they did in previous decades (in the last decade or so we have seen this, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Tailor of Panama).

Director Fernando Meirelles boarded this project after his reputation-making (internationally at least) City of God. It further cemented his status as a thoughtful, intelligent filmmaker tackling big themes with skill and insight. Since then, he’s been tarnished by falling short of his aspirations in Blindness and 360. But what he brings to the genteel, reserved world of Le Carré is immediacy and verve. Meirelles’ verité style, adopting handheld camera for the most part, clashes productively with the icy callousness of corporate decision-making. It’s only in the final reveal that one is left with a slight sense of cop-out, that the apparent triumph (on whatever level) isn’t true to the desperation of world it depicts.

Perhaps such cynicism should be tempered by the knowledge that Le Carré based his story on an actual case in Nigeria, in which Pfizer trialed a drug that left children disabled or dead. But the story here presents an impenetrable blockade of collusion and threat from corporate and government interests, one that suggests no respite. In his novel, the author commented that the fiction he presented was as “tame as a holiday postcard” in comparison to reality.

Unlike the same year’s The Interpreter, Meirelles is happy to set his narrative within an actual country. Ralph Fiennes plays Justin Quayle, a British diplomat in Kenya, whose wife and her doctor friend are investigating the covert testing of a TB drug. When Tessa (Rachel Weisz), and then her friend, turn up murdered, Justin pursues his own inquires.  As he uncovers evidence of corruption at every juncture his own life comes under threat.

Jeffrey Caine’s screenplay eases the thriller aspects in slowly, with the first half of the film more resonantly concerned with Jeffrey’s reflection on his relationship with Tessa. Fiennes essays the slightly silly, slightly embarrassing and emotionally reserved posh British chap immaculately, such that it’s quite clear that this will be another of Le Carré’s unlikely protagonists.

Our understanding of Tessa who, as subjectively depicted by Justin, appears to be one of those impassioned people whose cause is justification for trampling on her personal relationships, is a masterful lesson in shifting perspectives. We’re onto her from the off, a young activist taking up with someone who represents everything she apparently loathes. A ticket to her furthering her mission, it seems. And then there’s the affair everyone knows she’s having. And her prostituting herself with the British High Commissioner (Danny Huston). So, when this is all flipped on its head, we the audience feel as guilty as Justin. Well, not quite, as Justin being told the truth can never have quite the same impact for the audience as his earlier remembrances. But it’s an effective storytelling device, and both Fiennes and Weisz put considerable emotional heft into their parts (Weisz was actually pregnant during filming, hence the believable “prosthetics” in her nude scenes).

The supporting cast includes strong work from Huston, but also Bill Nighy as a slippery superior to Justin, Donald Sumpter, Archie Panjabi and Pete Postlethwaite. Mereilles’ regular cinematographer Cesar Charlone gives the film a saturated, arid intensity; the use of handheld camera, and employment of devices such as surveillance footage, adds a growing unease to Jeffrey’s journey of discovery.

It’s worth contrasting Gardener with The Interpreter again for a moment. Both take Africa as their starting point, but the latter film constructs a fantasy in a make-believe country where the intervention of the UN can set all things to rights. The President in that film is set out as an individual who once espoused freedom and justice but became the tyrannical despot he so loathed. This, however, is set out in an all too obvious moment of speechifying by one of the main characters.

There is a thematically similar moment in Gardener, but it sets its sights much lower and therefore hits its target more accurately. Justin confronts Huston’s character on his involvement in the conspiracy and his deference to the British government’s corporate masters (pharmaceutical appeasing means jobs), noting that he has become everything he stood against. It’s a believable moment, where we see how one’s erosion of standards and increase in relative justifications can lead to a complete loss of moral compass. In direct contrast to The Interpreter, Gardener is also willing to take a swipe at the UN as an embodiment of global justice and salvation; it’s just another corporate body like any other.

However, what really raises the film is it’s emotional content. The injustice that Justin feels he has done to Tessa through doubting her drives him to his fate. One that he is at peace with. He is not so much consumed with her broader political and humanitarian quest, but he assumes its colours in order to right this perceived wrong. A charge could be made that The Constant Gardener falls prey to the “white westerner telling the African’s story” (Blood Diamond is a particularly grinding example of this), and it’s a fair point. Although, perhaps, the film needs to establish itself from Justin’s perspective in order to recognise his own and, by extension our, complicity in the whole process of exploitation and profit.

So the final, literal, sermon comes across as an unwelcome cheap shot across the bows. It’s so unsubtle that Mereilles must have been aware of the connotations of the scene, but the effect is pat and diminishing of the film’s overall impact. Far better to have left the audience aware of the likely outcome than to embellish the tale with a grandstanding flourish. It was probably seen as a necessary balance to what might otherwise be seen as a downer ending, but the film deserved something with a bit more of Justin’s reserve, as opposed to Teresa’s bombast.

**** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Did you not just hand over a chicken to someone?

The Father (2020) (SPOILERS) I was in no great rush to see The Father , expecting it to be it to be something of an ordeal in the manner of that lavishly overpraised euthanasia-fest Amour. As with the previous Oscars, though, the Best Picture nominee I saw last turned out to be the best of the bunch. In that case, Parasite , its very title beckoning the psychic global warfare sprouting shoots around it, would win the top prize. The Father , in a year of disappointing nominees, had to settle for Best Actor. Ant’s good, naturally, but I was most impressed with the unpandering manner in which Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton approached material that might easily render one highly unstuck.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

So the devil's child will rise from the world of politics.

The Omen (1976) (SPOILERS) The coming of the Antichrist is an evergreen; his incarnation, or the reveal thereof, is always just round the corner, and he can always be definitively identified in any given age through a spot of judiciously subjective interpretation of The Book of Revelation , or Nostradamus. Probably nothing did more for the subject in the current era, in terms of making it part of popular culture, than The Omen . That’s irrespective of the movie’s quality, of course. Which, it has to be admitted, is not on the same level as earlier demonic forebears Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist .

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.