Skip to main content

They're not here to fish.


Captain Phillips
(2013)

Captain Phillips is exceptionally well made (provided you are not shakycam-phobic), edge-of-the-seat storytelling. On that level, it’s pretty much what you’d expect from the director of the latter two Matt Damon Bourne films. But that’s also the problem with it. A degree of topicality or political sensibility has informed most of Paul Greengrass’ big screen ventures, and this seemed poised to follow suit. Yet, on leaving the cinema, I was left puzzling over his reasons for adapting this real life drama. He has turned out a gripping action movie but one that ultimately amounts to little more than that.


When asked what attracted him to this account of the 2009 hijacking of Captain Richard Phillips’ container ship by Somali pirates, the director told Empire magazine “It’s the haves and have-nots, the big global wheels that are throwing up winners and losers”. Given his statement of intent and how tangentially (dare I say glibly) his film addresses this subject, I am still left wondering why he wanted to make it, or how he thought Billy Ray’s script would provide viewers with food for thought in this area. It’s one thing to make a fictional movie that provides incidental commentary on real world issues, but surely their "plucked from the headlines" choice brings an additional onus and responsibility? Is a particularly palpable white-knuckle ride the best one can expect?


There has already been much discussion on the ifs and maybes of whether the good Captain (he must be good, Tom Hanks is playing him) made the right decisions. In part, this coverage has been seen as a preamble to potential Oscar nominations (during the canvassing period mud tends to be slung vehemently at pictures purporting to base themselves on fact, but which deviate from the total truth, despite their not being up in the Best Documentary category). It’s a conversation worth having, but I’d suggest that any issues are as much to do with the choice of leading actor as anything the film gets intrinsically wrong.


The intimations that the captain may not have made the best choices are scant, and sink without trace beneath Hanks' intrinsic likability. This comes down to an issue of fidelity, and whether Greengrass is more concerned with his message (the haves and have-nots, remember) or attempting a character study of the captain warts and all. Given that we spend the majority of the running time in Captain Tom’s mental space, and the result most certainly falls on the side of heroic fortitude, I’d suggest Greengrass isn’t interested in presenting a balanced or accurate depiction of the man. I don’t think this need be a problem if the broader message comes through. The Phillips of the movie is shown as a diligent fellow concerned about possible attacks, who puts his crew through test drills. There are brief suggestions that he may not be safety-first, as we see him scanning, and ignoring, emails warning of the persistent piracy threat and arguing against steering a course clear of (immediately) dangerous waters. But nothing on screen approaches the claims by crew (11 of whom have brought a lawsuit against the shipping company) that he was extremely difficult to work with and willfully and stubbornly disregarded the imminent dangers (there were two, not one, brushes with pirates prior to the boarding depicted in the movie).


Captain Tom is hard-but-fair guy as seen, one who takes command decisively and shows a keen psychological perception of his opponents. He’s the everyman hero we are accustomed to from Hanks. I’m not suggesting Greengrass needed to perform a character assassination on the guy, but one might expect an attempt to balance the different takes; after all, his protagonist is also the co-author of the book Ray adapted. The casting of Hanks seals the deal; there is no Captain Bligh-esque doubt to be found here. Even the same script with a different lead (a Tommy Lee Jones type, say) would have cast a less unequivocal eye on the man.


Presumably the events inside the lifeboat are entirely from the real Phillips’ account (so, unless the imprisoned Muse has been interviewed, again it is entirely one-sided). During these scenes Phillips is a scared but cool-headed guy, whose crafty intrigues repeatedly outmatch his opponents (poor, ill-thinking impoverished fellows that they are). He offers to tend their wounds, and shows remarkable fortitude in talking back to and manipulating them (even with the prospect of ransoming him unharmed, it is a surprise that he is left off so lightly; there are no physical reprisals for the treatment Muse received in the engine room). It’s all a bit much to swallow. Even more so that Captain Tom offers empathic olive branches amid his personal plight; this is true American courage on display. He sadly reflects that Bilal is just a kid, reproves Muse for raiding a ship that is simply attempting to get food aid to starving Africans, and even has the gall to draw comparisons between their lots (they both answer to bosses, you know; even viewed as a piece of manipulation on Phillips’ part, this is pretty ungainly stuff). With all this, and by having heroic Captain Tom exclaim, during an especially dramatic moment, that Muse is “not just a fisherman”, Greengrass betrays that in fact this is straight-up Hollywood razzle-dazzle with a thin veneer of verisimilitude attached.


Hanks is very good, of course. The scene where he breaks down, unable to put his ordeal into words, is a master class of an unmannered performance. A shoe-in for a Best Actor Oscar nomination. But still, you are in no doubt that this is Tom Hanks, a guy who makes cold-blooded gangsters warm and cuddly (Road to Perdition). You're instantly on side with America's Mr Affable. Having him playing you is tantamount to movie canonisation.


Rather than Phillips, a more interesting conversation is just what the film thinks it’s about. Does Greengrass really think he is tackling the haves and have-nots subject with any degree of depth? It strikes me that this is a response he has rehearsed, rather than one that went in tandem with the story. Because, if it had, surely he would have felt compelled to broaden his canvas, to invite discussion of the wider political perspectives involved both in terms of the Somalis and the way the story turned into a massive media event (one which was twerked to the max). The director argues that this material “speaks to the world”, Third World armed desperation feeding off First World wealth. But does it really? When the US Navy (the cavalry!) shows up to save the day and order is preserved? Without the background of why such an overwhelming show of force was needed to save one man in peril on the sea (and at the direct order of President Obama no less; now there’s a publicity coup), or how these fearsome foreigners came to ply their piratical trade, Greengrass shortchanges the viewer and renders his movie rudderless. It may seem obvious to say it, but had one of the SEALs accidentally popped Captain Tom, we wouldn’t be watching the Hollywood version.


There is a bit of nominal background to the Somalis, but not enough that we have a real insight into their world (they are cajoled into their high seas sorties; their former livelihood as fishermen has been ruined by external plundering of stocks). We see volunteers for the raiding party assemble on dry land, and the initial stages of the film intercut with the embarkation of the Maersk Alabama. But we have also seen Captain Tom with his ever-loving wife (Catherine Keener), discussing their kids. None of these Somalis have families that we know of, and their humanity is dictated by degrees of culpability. Muse (an outstanding performance from Barkhad Abdi) genuinely appears to want the hijacking to go off without a hitch or casualties, despite earlier having unhesitatingly bashed in the head of a fellow Somali provocateur. Vying for authority is the unstable and khat-fuelled Najee (Faysal Ahmed), physically and temperamentally intimidating. On the opposite end of the spectrum is youngest crew member Bilal (Barkhad Abdirahman) with whom Captain Tom strikes up an almost paternal relationship after tending his glassy foot (aw).


Greengrass apparently wants to strip his movie down as much possible to the events on the ground (water). But this is a somewhat disingenuous decision when the back half of your movie concerns the pumped up firepower of the US Navy bearing down on these feckless Somalis, unlucky enough to mess with the greatest superpower on the planet. One starts to ponder why this section is quite so extended, particularly since a previously taut affair begins to sag under the weight of tension stretched that too far. If Greengrass was willing to truncate the crew’s experience in the bowels of the ship from 12 hours to what seems like about 90 minutes in the screen version (and no more than 20 minutes screen time), surely he could have pruned the pursuit of the lifeboat too? 


It’s not as if Captain Tom’s conversations foster any great insights (The “Maybe in America” response to Tom’s suggestion that there must be something else for the Somalis beyond fishing and kidnapping is as robust an exploration of the have-nots as Greengrass can muster). Do we really need to see the SEALs parachute to the rescue? Couldn’t we just rest easy in the knowledge that they are magically there (one also has to wonder at the casting director’s choice of the most steroidally-enhanced specimens imaginable for the team; surely these guys would need to be light on their feet?) Perhaps it’s just another of example of the legendary stature Hollywood affords these men (perhaps excepting that 1990 Charlie Sheen movie… no, dammit, let’s include it), as Greengrass finds himself fliming a virtual recruitment campaign for the SEALs. Whatever the director’s intentions, this imagery wholly plays into a validation of America’s “might is right” mentality; don’t mess with even one of our countrymen or your lives are forfeit.


Having said all this, I don’t think this movie is guilty of the willful ignorance of Black Hawk Down, Ridley Scott’s jingoistic celebration of American military prowess (despite that affair being nothing of the sort). There, the Somalis are faceless cannon fodder. Rather, Greengrass is guilty by omission. If you talk the talk, but aren’t willing to take the time to inform your audience, about what they are watching and why they are watching it, it is fair game to level the charge of misrepresentation and unfiltered mythmaking.


All of which is unfortunate because, by every other standard, this is a very good film. That is, every standard other than the one of failing to convey a message needed to justify making it in the first place. Greengrass uses handheld camera like no other director; if anything he has only honed this skills, ensuring the action is always clear and coherent. The bare bones of plot are a natural fit for a screen adaptation. A lack of familiarity with the narrative of the hijack had me expecting that the majority would take place on the cargo ship, so the manner in which the crew turns the tables on the pirates surprised and wrong-footed me.


I didn’t think I would have to accuse Paul Greengrass of conveying the level of understanding and piercing insight shown by Ron Howard to his true-life subjects, but he’s partially missed the boat with Captain Phillips. At times this film sails perilously close to being just another America versus the foreigners story. As an action/thriller it is first class, however.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…