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

I don’t need to be held together, I’m fine just floating through space like Andy.

Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017)
Or, to give it its full subtitle, Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond – The Story of Jim Carrey & Andy Kaufman Featuring a Very Special, Contractually Obligated Mention of Tony Clifton. Carrey’s in a contradictory place just now, on the one hand espousing his commitment to a spiritual path and enlightened/ing state, on the other being sued in respect of his ex-girlfriend’s suicide and accompanying allegations regarding his behaviour. That behaviour – in a professional context – and his place of consciousness are the focus of Jim & Andy, and an oft-repeated mantra (great for motivational speeches) that “I learned that you can fail at what you don’t love, so you may as well do what you love. There’s really no choice to be made”. The results are consequently necessarily contradictory, but always fascinating.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

No, by the sky demon! I say no!

Doctor Who The Pirate Planet
I doubt Pennant Roberts, popular as he undoubtedly was with the cast, was anyone’s idea of a great Doctor Who director. Introduced to the show by Philip Hinchliffe – a rare less-than-sterling move – he made a classic story on paper (The Face of Evil) just pretty good, and proceeded to translate Robert Holmes’ satirical The Sun Makers merely functionally. When he returned to the show during the ‘80s, he was responsible for two entirely notorious productions, in qualitative terms. But The Pirate Planet is the story where his slipshod, rickety, make-do approach actually works… most of the time (look at the surviving footage of Shada, where there are long passages of straight narrative, and it’s evident Roberts wasn’t such a good fit). Douglas Adams script is so packed, both with plot and humour, that its energy is inbuilt; there’s no need to rely on a craftsman to imbue tension or pace. There is a caveat, of course: if your idea of Doctor Who requires a straig…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

This place sure isn’t like that one in Austria.

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Brawl in Cell Block 99 is most definitely cut from the same cloth as writer-director-co-composer Craig S Zahler’s previous flick Bone Tomahawk: an inexorable, slow-burn suspenser that works equally well as a character drama. That is, when it isn’t revelling in sporadic bursts of ultraviolence, including a finale in a close-quartered pit of hell. If there’s nothing quite as repellent as that scene in Bone Tomahawk, it’s never less than evident that this self-professedchild of Fangoria” loves his grue. He also appears to have a predilection for, to use his own phraseology, less politically correct content.

We’re not in a prophecy… We’re in a stolen Toyota Corolla.

Bright (2017)
(SPOILERS) Is Bright shite? The lion’s share of the critics would have you believe so, including a quick-on-the-trigger Variety, which gave it one of the few good reviews but then pronounced it DOA in order to announce their intention for Will Smith to run for the Oval Office (I’m sure he’ll take it under advisement). I don’t really see how the movie can’t end up as a “success”; most people who have Netflix will at least be curious about an all-new $90m movie with a (waning, but only because he’s keeps making bad choices) major box office star. As to whether it’s any good, Bright’s about on a level with most of director David Ayer’s movies, in that it’s fast, flashy and fitfully entertaining, but also very muddled, mixed-up and, no matter how much cash is thrown at it, still resembles the kind of thing that usually ends up straight to video (making Netflix his ideal home).

This is how we do action in Uganda.

Who Killed Captain Alex? (2010)
Uganda’s first action movie”, Who Killed Captain Alex? is a cheerfully ultra-low budget, wholly amateur picture made by Nabwana Isaac Godfrey Geoffrey. It’s the kind of thing you and your mates would make and (rightly) expect no one else to ever watch (aside from a few hundred hits on YouTube). But stick a frequently hilarious running commentary over the top from VJ (video joker) Emme, and it this home-ish move takes on something approaching the spoofy quality of What’s Up Tiger Lilly?

Nothing in the world can stop me now!

This is not going to go the way you think!

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
(SPOILERS) The most interesting aspect of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, particularly given the iron fist Lucasfilm has wielded over the spinoffs, is how long a leash Rian Johnson has been granted to tear apart the phonier, Original Trilogy-lite aspects of The Force Awakens. The resulting problem is that the areas where he’s evidently inspired are very good (almost anything Force related, basically), but there are consequently substantial subplots that simply don’t work, required as they are to pay lip service to characters or elements he feels have nowhere to go. The positives undoubtedly tip the balance significantly in The Last Jedi’s favour, but they also mean it hasn’t a hope of attaining the all-round status of IV and V (still the out-of-reach grail for the franchise, quality-wise). Which is a shame, as thematically, this has far more going on, handled with far greater acumen, than anything in the interim.