Movie Review: Dirty Dancing Havana Nights

Dirty Dancing Havana Nights

Directed by Guy Ferland

Written by Boaz Yakin

Starring Diego Luna, Romola Garai, Sela Ward, John Slattery, Jonathan Jackson, Mika Boorem

Release Date February 27th, 2004

Published February 27th, 2004

The dirty little secret of dancing is that sometimes it's just sex with your clothes on. If you don't believe me, go to a club or see Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights where a trip to a Cuban dance club is like Plato's Retreat with a dress code. It's where sweaty over the clothes humping stands in for dancing. Don't get me wrong I like sweaty over the clothes humping, especially with the attractive group of people in this movie. But in a mainstream movie being marketed to puritanical Americans based on the love of a semi-chaste American fairy tale, don't you think it's a little out of place?

The original Dirty Dancing is a camp-tastic melange of teenage wish fulfillment and cheeseball acting and dialogue. It's star Patrick Swayze was both alluring to it's teenage fanbase (and their mothers) and anathema to anyone with a brain. Jennifer Grey on the other hand with her smart smile and that unusual nose was the perfect stand in for every average teenage girl in the audience who never believed they could be pretty and get the guy.

In this new version the Jennifer Grey role is filled by Romola Garai, a beautiful woman who could never be mistaken for the average American teenager. Her miscasting is not the film’s biggest problem but one of many. Garai is Katey, 18 years old and preparing for college in the fall. On her way to Class Valedictorian and the perfect wasp fantasy of Radcliffe college in the 1950's, she is suddenly whisked away to Cuba where her father (John Slattery) has taken a promotion from the Ford Motor Company. He will make more money but the family must move to Cuba and Katey must finish her senior year away from her friends.

It's not all bad though, Cuba is lovely and warm and Katey quickly attracts the attention of James (Jonathan Jackson), who happens to the son of her Dad's boss. She couldn't care less about him, Katey is interested in the handsome young Cuban waiter Javier (Diego Luna). After being left behind at school and forced to walk home in the dangerous streets of Cuba, Katey encounters Javier dancing to street musicians with his friends. He offers to walk her home and the two fall into puppy love.

You know what happens next, dance contest, lie to parents, secret dance lessons, yada yada yada, but before we get to that there is a scene of such relatable, casual cruelty from our lead actress that you momentarily think you won't forgive her. On a date with James she suckers him into taking her to a club where Javier is dancing with his friends. Once there she drops James to dance with Javier, well... not exactly not more like the over the clothes humping I mentioned before. All of this while nice guy James is being intimidated by a group of locals espousing Fidel Castro's revolutionary politics that include throwing the white people off the island.

(On a side note the film is set in 1958 pre-Castro Cuba and despite it's teen appeal romance genre does try to evoke it's time and setting. Castro, Communism and revolution have no place in this pop entertainment and it's embarrassing to watch the filmmakers try and shoehorn it in.)

That scene is followed by another mind-blowing scene in which the screenwriters try to throw our sympathies back to Katey by turning James into a lecherous jerk. Then the James character is all but kicked out of the movie except that the rest of the plot turns on a decision he makes not to expose Katey and Javier’s relationship, something that would stop the film in it's track. This is a decision the character makes offscreen! Without any real motivation other than the plot needs it.!

There are yet more problems for Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, not least of which is the nostalgic inclusion of Patrick Swayze in a cameo as a nameless dance instructor. The Swayze still has the bronzed look, a tad withered now but according to my sister, still handsome. He's also still ridiculous and cannot deliver a line of his dance guru dialogue with inducing derisive laughter. Any melodramatic momentum the film generates immediately dissipates at his appearance as the entire audience reels back to remember Johnny Castle.

Another problem is the film’s soundtrack a combination of classic Latin rhythms and modern Latin infused pop. There are moments when the film’s dancing threatens to entertain you but then the producers throw in some modern radio friendly pop tune and you are reminded that this is not a movie but a sales pitch for a soundtrack album.

As for the stars, Garai is sadly miscast. She is pleasant and has an awkward comedic charm but she's no Jennifer Grey. Diego Luna, best known for his work in the remarkable Y Tu Mama Tambien, does well to dull his acting senses to the mindless melodramatics of the plot. He clearly out classes the material in front of him but does what he can to make it palatable. And he can dance.

What a surprise that this 81 minute three act crowd-pleaser was written by the master of manipulative fluff Boaz Yakin whose Remember The Titans is the single wimpiest sports movie ever. How any director could make Denzel Washington so bland is beyond me. But after seeing Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights and his last directorial effort, Uptown Girls, Yakin shows himself to be the master of bland.

Yakin did not direct Havana Nights, that thankless task went to Guy Ferland, a television veteran who knows how to send the audience home in less than sixty minutes. Here, extended beyond the confines of commercial breaks, he is at a loss to send anyone home happy. The films ending is one of the worst you will see this year, a sappy, sugary confection of forced goodwill that even a TV show would balk at.

What Havana Nights truly lacks is a good deal of camp. The original was not a good movie but it was absolutely howlingly funny in the kitsch sense. Honestly who can't say that famous Johnny Castle line "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" without at least a smile on your face. That is pure camp and it's what makes Dirty Dancing so memorable. It's why I bought the DVD. To sit around with friends on a Saturday night and go all Mystery Science Theater on Dirty Dancing is one of my all time favorite memories.

There will be no parties for Havana Nights, or really any memories for me at all of this movie beyond this review. And that is this film’s biggest failure.

Movie Review: DeLovely

De-Lovely (2004) 

Directed by Irwin Winkler

Written by Jay Cocks

Starring Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd, Jonathan Pryce 

Release Date July 2nd, 2004

Published July 1st, 2004 

The last time director Irwin Winkler and Kevin Kline worked together they turned out the dreadful melodrama Life As A House. So when I heard they were teaming again I was less than thrilled. Honestly I have never been a fan of Mr. Winkler's work, including The Net and At First Sight, a pair of less than stellar efforts. For Mr. Kline, I have always liked him but his recent career showed a career in decline. It seemed the last thing Kevin Kline needed was to work with Irwin Winkler again.

That may be what makes Kline's performance in De-Lovely so remarkable. Even as Mr. Winkler is delivering a rather compromised musical effort, Kline floats through effortlessly showcasing the wit and wisdom that won him an Oscar and the admiration of so many critics.

De-Lovely is the life story of one of the 20th centuries finest songwriters, Cole Porter. In the film, Kevin Kline plays Cole Porter from the time he met his wife Linda (Ashley Judd) in 1918 to his death in 1965. The film’s structure however is not a straightforward biopic. The story is told as Cole is being visited by an angel named Gabe (British character actor Jonathan Pryce) who takes Cole back through his life as though it were a Broadway production.

Cole Porter met Linda Lee in Paris while recovering from his first failed attempt at Broadway. It is Linda who draws Cole out of his temporary creative funk and drives him to create again. She is his muse but his love is not exactly aimed toward her. One of the worst kept secrets of Cole Porter's life was that he was gay. Though he was married to Linda for 38 years, the two had an understanding that never achieves proper depth in De-Lovely which seems too concerned with pop stars to truly dramatize Linda and Cole's unusual relationship. More on those pop stars later.

The film takes Cole and Linda from Paris to Milan and then New York where on Broadway; Porter made his greatest successes. Finally, the film goes to Hollywood where Cole was never comfortable with his big screen treatments. Louis B. Mayer, played in a cameo by Peter Polycarpou, wanted Porter to tone down his wit and deliver sappy romantic songs that play well to mass audiences. In one of the film’s better moments the cast breaks into Porter's playful "Be A Clown" to illustrate acceptance of his compromised Hollywood persona.

It was in Hollywood where Linda and Cole's relationship would go through its biggest trials. Cole may not have enjoyed the film business but he did love the Hollywood nightlife that offered many discreet, and not so discreet meeting grounds of Hollywood's gay community. The film has a minor blackmail subplot but like many other dramatic developments in Porter's life in the film, the subplot is quickly shoved aside for another pop star performance.

The final act of the film and of Porter and Linda's lives came after Porter was nearly paralyzed in a horse riding accident. His legs were crushed and he was advised to have them amputated. It was Linda who said no and because of her, Porter was able to continue composing music despite years of pain and surgery. He would return to Broadway with his biggest hit, Kiss Me Kate.

Thankfully, Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd don't need much depth from Jay Cocks' script to communicate the depth of feeling between Cole and Linda. The unconventional nature of their relationship is communicated by Kline and Judd in subtle ways, in the way she looks so longingly at him and the way he appreciates her love but cannot fully reciprocate it. Kline's Cole is full of the charm and charisma that made Porter a legend in his time. Still, there is always a hint of sadness or guilt when Cole looks at Linda. He can see her love and devotion and deeply wishes he could return it in some way.

The only way Porter could show Linda his appreciation was through his songs, many of which are dedicated to her. But even those love songs had a hint of Porter's capricious wit and many have read more into those songs and their innuendo-laden lyrics. Certainly not all of the songs can be attributed to Linda.

The film’s biggest problem is it's unusual structure, a gimmicky flashback style that may have seemed clever on the page but never comes together onscreen. As Cole and Gabe look back over Cole's life with Linda and his music as if the were directing a Broadway play, Winkler can't seem to commit to whether the film is a surrealist musical or melodrama. De-Lovely isn't a musical like Chicago where the songs are perfectly enmeshed in the story. Rather, De-Lovely wants it both ways. Flights of fancy where people just insanely break into song backed by an unseen orchestra, as well as staged performances where Cole watches from the audience, as he would have in real life on opening night.

Porter's music is performed by both Kline and Judd who acquit themselves well; that is to say, they don't embarrass themselves. Many of the songs are performed by pop superstars like Alanis Morissette (Let's Do It, Let's Fall In Love), Sheryl Crow (Begin The Beguine), Elvis Costello (Let's Misbehave), and Robbie Williams (the title song De-Lovely). While they are game performers, there is a glaring difference between pop songs and show tunes. That difference is brought home by Broadway performers like Caroline O'Connor (Anything Goes) and John Barrowman (Night And Day) who's belt it to the back of the theater style steals the show.

The decision to use the well known pop stars is clearly a commercial decision to sell soundtracks and not an artistic decision to do what's best for the film. I love Alanis, Sheryl and Elvis but they are performing show tunes as stand alone pop songs and they don't quite find the right notes. Once you make that commitment to commercialism you have compromised the integrity of the story and I for one and drawn away from the story.

As many problems as I have with De-Lovely, I am right on the cusp of recommending the film because Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd are so terrific. This is an amazing return to form for Kline who hopefully will seek out more quality material in the future. Ashley Judd is absolutely radiant even as the movie leaves much of Linda's life on the cutting room floor. The depth of the character comes from Judd's eyes, which show the pain of unrequited love and unending devotion in ways the script can't seem to communicate in words.

These are Oscar nomination-worthy performances in a film that is far from the same quality. The two are difficult to separate but if you can do it you may find a reason to enjoy De-Lovely the way I enjoyed it. The joy of watching two great actors show how difficult a job acting can be and how easy great actors can make it look.

Movie Review The Day After Tomorrow

The Day After Tomorrow (2004) 

Directed by Roland Emmerich

Written by Jeffrey Nachmanoff, Roland Emmerich

Starring Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sela Ward, Ian Holm, Emmy Rossum

Release Date May 28th, 2004

Published May 27th, 2004 

Being a liberal Democrat and environmentalist, I am supposed to be excited that a major summer blockbuster is taking up a cause I care about.

I’m not.

I am not at all excited that a topic as important as global warming is getting the Hollywood treatment, especially from the director who brought us Godzilla. The Day After Tomorrow plays at being important in its marketing campaign only to cover up its utter goofiness as a movie.

Dennis Quaid stars as Jack Hall, everyman Paleoclimatologist with a thing for the end of humanity because of global warming. So into saving future generations from what he believes is a coming ice age, he has lost contact with his wife (Sela Ward) and his son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal).

Jack spends most of his time with his partners Frank (Jay O. Sanders) and Jason (Dash Mihok) traveling the polar ice caps. Their most recent excursion uncovered something dangerously unexpected that proves Jack’s theory about the ice age. Unfortunately, when Jack pitches his theory at a conference in New Delhi India, he is blown off by the Vice President of the United States (Kenneth Walsh). The VP is more concerned about American wallets than the survival of the human race.

Of course, Jack’s theory applies to an ice age in say 100 years from now, which may be why the VP is less than impressed. Nevertheless, something good comes out of it when Jack meets Dr. Terry Rapson who will play an important role when Jack’s theory comes true much sooner than he expected.

Jack’s theory is that melting polar ice caps will cause the jetstream to stop delivering warm air to much of the Northern Hemisphere, leaving it a frozen wasteland. We are tipped to some serious trouble when Japan is hit with bricks of hail, Los Angeles is devastated by multiple tornadoes and New York City turns into a swimming pool.

More bad news for Jack, his son Sam along with some schoolmates, Brian (Arjay Smith) and Laura (Emmy Rossum) are in New York and trapped by the rising waters in the top floor of the New York Public Library. Now Jack and his team must trek through the rapidly freezing countryside from Washington DC to New York to save his son. Meanwhile, his ex-wife must decide whether to stay with a dying child and wait for a rescue that might not come or join the hordes of Americans heading for the safety and warmth of Mexico.

The film has a solid three act structure, act one the storm, act two the survival and act three the rescue. Of course, director Roland Emmerich who also wrote the film’s script, can’t resist throwing in extraneous touches like a boneheaded sendup of the Bush administration that even the most ardent Bush haters will roll their eyes at. The dying child I mentioned before, exists only to give Sela Ward something to do and is resolved with little drama.

And then there are the wolves. Yes, for some reason wolves have escaped from the New York Zoo and attack our heroes at the most opportune time.

Now the thing that is garnering the most attention about this film is its tenuous grasp of global warming and environmental issues. To the film’s credit, there is no mention of saving the planet, Emmerich has at least grasped the idea that saving the environment is not about the planet, it’s about saving human beings. That said, his ridiculous ideas about global warming, polar ice caps and so-called SUPER storms are more fiction than science.

There may indeed be an ice age in the future but that is part of the cyclical nature of the planet. There has been an ice age before and there will be one again, whether we cause it or not. There is little evidence we could cause it and that is where the film’s specious logic goes beyond its dramatized idea of a six day ice age and into the dangerous situation of casting a negative light on real environmental issues.

The fact is that a summer blockbuster is no place for such big ideas. Summer blockbusters are to dazzle the eye with cheap thrills and loud noises, if they can also be entertaining on top of that, it’s truly an accomplishment. This portentous idea of a blockbuster with global concerns only serves to denigrate those concerns by dragging them down to the level of the big, dumb, loud blockbuster.

On top of all those problems is that the film is just dull as dirt. While some of the special effects are impressive, every bit of character including the usually reliable Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal are annoying, cloying caricatures of melodramatic TV drama characters. This is WB level drama, especially the group of misfits at the library.

The film is interminable halfway through, where the storm and the impressive effects are pretty well over. After that, the film’s atrocious dialogue must carry the day. At 2 hours plus, The Day After Tomorrow makes you wish it were really tomorrow and the movie was a distant memory.

Movie Review: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Dawn of the Dead (2004) 

Directed by Zack Snyder

Written by James Gunn 

Starring Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Jake Webber, Mekhi Pfifer

Release Date March 19th, 2004

Published March 18th, 2004

Top 5 Lessons for Surviving A Zombie Attack from Max Brooks' The Zombie Survival Guide (Three Rivers Press $12.95)

1. Organize Before they rise

2. They feel no fear, Why should you?

3. Use Your Heads: Cut off theirs

4. Blades don't need reloading.

5. No Place is Safe, Only Safer

Sage advice for the cast of the movie Dawn of The Dead, the "reimagining" of director George A. Romero's schlock classic by first time director Zach Tyler and writer James Gunn.

Indie staple Sarah Polley stars in the new Dawn as Ana, a nurse on the run after watching her husband turned into a zombie by a ten-year-old neighbor girl. Ana at first doesn't know they are zombies but after hooking up with a ragtag group of fellow living souls, she soon comes to realize that the dead have indeed risen. Ana is joined by a taciturn cop Kenny (Ving Rhames), a studious businessman Michael (Jake Weber) and a couple with a baby on the way (Mekhi Phifer and Inna Korakoba).

There are others but they are mostly zombie food. Other than Michael Kelly as mall security guard CJ, none of the remaining supporting cast makes much of an impression. Not that they needed to, they just have to run, scream, look scared and be eaten and each does a terrific job with that. Otherwise, the core cast members, Rhames, Polley et. Al, actually infuse a little life into their stock horror characters.

The action is centered in a suburban mall near Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Toronto and Ontario Canada stand in for Milwaukee). This is where our band of heroes hole up and bond over the shared experience of nearly being eaten by zombies. The actors do a terrific job of letting the audience share in the frightened excitement and confusion of this surreal life and death situation.

So how do the zombies come to be zombies? The film never bothers to explain. Like Romero's original, the zombies simply spring up out of nowhere one day and suddenly neighbors are chewing on neighbors and chaos reigns. The film’s teaser says something about there being no more room in hell, and indeed you should book your plans early if you want to get in, but really there is no explanation. Only the most nitpicky viewer will care how the zombies were conceived and nitpickers never make good horror fans anyway.

Director Zach Tyler and schlock veteran James Gunn, a former writer for Troma films, have a terrific sense of classic zombie farce. Though there zombies are the sped up new generation zombies that don't trip at opportune moments or shuffle slow enough to allow easy escapes, they are still a great source of both scares and humor. In one scene, Rhames and company on the roof of the mall play a unique time-killing game with a gun shop owner on a neighboring rooftop, challenging the marksmen to pick off zombies resembling celebrities.

There are also moments of good drama sprinkled between the gore and the humor. Keep an eye on Phifer and Korakoba. Also, the film’s ending, which some may find unsatisfactory, I found it to be fitting regardless of how well it hues to the original film.

This "reimagining" of Dawn of The Dead doesn't have Romero's cockeyed undercurrent of consumerism allegory. Where Romero used the mall setting for his 1979 film as a platform for social satire, this new film is more action oriented and the humor comes from different sources.

I never expected to like Dawn. On general principle, I oppose most, if not all remakes. Even I must admit when they get one right and they get this one right. Scary, funny, gory and surprisingly well-acted, Dawn Of The Dead is one terrific horror movie.

Movie Review Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

Hellboy 2 The Golden Army (2008) 

Directed by Guillermo Del Toro

Written by Guillermo Del Toro

Starring Ron Perlman, Jeffrey Tambor, Anna Walton, Doug Jones, Luke Goss

Release Date July 11th, 2008

Published July 10th, 2008

The most disappointing film of the summer, thus far, is Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. As a fan of the 2004 Hellboy movie from the exceptionally talented writer-director Guillermo Del Toro, I was stoked to see his follow up. Now, I wish he had just moved on to his next project, The Lord of the Rings prequel The Hobbit.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army returns Ron Perlman to the role of Hellboy, a red demon fighter for humanity. For the uninitiated, Hellboy was discovered by the Nazis but raised by an American scientist. Working for the Bureau of Paranormal Affairs, a secret arm of the government, Hellboy fights battles that no one is supposed to know about.

Four years since Hellboy lost his father, played by John Hurt, and won the heart of Liz (Selma Blair), Hellboy remains a cantankerous, rebellious soul who can't resist getting his picture in the paper, over the objections of his boss (Jeffrey Tambor) who's forced to come up with ever more elaborate spin to convince people Hellboy doesn't exist.

Keeping Hellboy under wraps however becomes far less important once a former member of the Elf royal family, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), decides to end a centuries long truce with humanity. His goal? Destroy humanity and bring the creatures darkness into the light.

To do so Prince Nuada will call on the Golden Army, indestructible soldiers made of solid gold. Standing against him is his sister Princess Nuala (Anna Walton) who wants to keep the truce in place. She turns to Hellboy for protection and to Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) Hellboy's fishy best friend who falls head over gills in love with her.

Hellboy vs The Golden Army sounds like it should be a pretty awesome battle and as a special effect it's impressive

Unfortunately, it also will by the end be fought with little context and consequence to the story. Writer-director Guillermo Del Toro simply loses interest in the story and turns his attention to crafting creatures and giant special effects.

Some will find Del Toro's choice of visual splendor over storytelling to be dynamic and imaginative. For me however, I was quickly bored with the creatures and the giant effects and longed for the characters to deepen and the story to take on some meaning. I wanted the dueling love stories of Hellboy and Liz and Abe and the Princess to gain meaning.

And finally, I wanted the vibe of cool that Hellboy carried in the first film to return. In the first movie, Star Ron Perlman cultivated a Bogart-like air of detached cool mixed with vulnerability. In Hellboy 2 that vibe is replaced with a bizarre sense of humor that ranges from Men In Black lifts to references to Barry Manilow.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army has a number of unformed ideas that could have been more interesting. At one point in the movie Prince Nuada gets in his head about how humanity doesn't appreciate Hellboy, asking him why he still helps them. For a moment Hellboy is conflicted. The conflict lasts for about a minute and is then discarded. Worse yet, the same idea was played out with more depth and understanding in the X-Men movies. Essentially, the most interesting idea Hellboy 2 has has been done already and done far better.

With its bizarre sense of humor and focus on creature creation over story development, Hellboy 2: The Golden Army becomes an odd mélange of disappointments and undermined ideas. Yes, it's a good looking movie. But who cares.

Movie Review: Dahmer

Dahmer (2002) 

Directed by David Jacobson

Written by David Jacobson 

Starring Jeremy Renner, Bruce Davison

Release Date June 21st, 2002 

Published July 28th, 2002

The mind of the killer is one that has fascinated filmmakers for decades. The question of what drives someone to kill is very conducive to drama. It involves conflict, emotion, action and intellect. Films like Silence of The Lambs or Henry: Portrait Of a Serial Killer attempt to make sense of psychotic behavior. In the new to video, Dahmer, writer director David Jacobsen looks into the mind of real life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, and like Silence and Henry it comes away without any real answers.

The story of Jeffrey Dahmer is well known; he was sentenced to 900+ years in jail for murdering and eating 19 men. What isn't well known is what drove Dahmer to be a killer. The film has two competing theories, first is his struggle with his homosexuality. Dahmer was openly gay but still ashamed of his sexuality.

The other theory involves the divorce of Dahmer's parents when he was 18. In flashbacks we meet Jeffrey's father well played by Bruce Davison as a cold but caring father completely at a loss when trying to understand his son’s odd moods.

In the present tense we meet one of Dahmer's victims, a 14-year old Asian boy who Dahmer offers to buy shoes for in exchange for letting him take his photograph back at his apartment. We see Dahmer's mind twisting and turning as he decides just what to do with his victim. We also meet the potential victim that would go on to be Dahmer's downfall, a young black hustler named Rodney (Artel Kayaru). Dahmer meets Rodney at a hunting shop where Dahmer purchases a hunting knife. They have an immediate attraction and are soon at Dahmer's apartment.

Jeremy Renner plays Dahmer and looks strikingly like the Dahmer I remember from TV. That greasy haired creepiness. Renner is very good at playing Dahmer's strange insecurity. It's one of the most unusual parts of Dahmer's story that many of his gay victims would have come to him willingly, but Dahmer still choose to drug them before having his way with them. Renner and Artel Kayaru as his last victim have a fantastic series of scenes where they challenge each other with intelligent dialogue and each scene has an undercurrent of twisted humor as Rodney trades irony-laced dialogue with Dahmer while not knowing how ironic it is.

Renner and writer director avid Jacobsen succeed in humanizing Dahmer, not so much that you identify with him, but enough that you understand why his neighbors were so shocked by his crimes. Dahmer was a quiet gay, a chocolate factory employee who kept to himself and never bothered anybody. Isn't that what they all say after they find out their neighbor was a serial killer? The film Dahmer gives you a sense of why they say that.

While the film isn't entertaining, it works on an intellectual level as a psychological profile of Jeffrey Dahmer. And while we will never really know what drove Dahmer to such sickness, we can at least learn a lesson from this film in perhaps how to spot the next Dahmer.

Movie Review Rendition

Rendition (2007)

Directed by Gavin Hood

Written by Kelly Sane 

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgard, Alan Arkin

Release Date October 19th, 2007

Published October 18th, 2007 

Those who advocate intelligence gathering techniques that extend beyond our constitution have a compelling argument. They cite intelligence gathered by extraordinary measures that have saved lives and how men who are truly bad guys have received the treatment they deserve for the things they did. This argument holds sway until you hear from Arizona Senator John McCain, a real life torture victim.

Senator McCain, a right wing, pro-war hawk opposes any action that associates America and torture. McCain's point is that torture simply doesn't work. That a tortured man will tell you anything you want to hear. The movie Rendition makes McCain's point in dramatic fashion as it tells the interlocking story of how torture effects the lives of so many different people in so many different ways.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars in Rendition as Douglas Freeman a CIA pencil pusher who finds himself thrust into the job of case worker in northern Africa following a terrorist attack. His new job will be to observe the tactics of a man named Abasi Fawal (Yigal Naor), tactics that are considered torture under American law. It will be Abasi who will attempt to glean information from the latest subject of what American law refers to as Extraordinary Rendition.

On his way home from a business trip in South Africa, Anwar Al Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) is detained by police and then the CIA. It seems that he has received calls on numerous occasions from a terrorist named Rashid, calls he claims to be unaware of. Al Ibrahimi was returning home to Chicago where his very pregnant wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) and his six year old, American born son are waiting for him.

When he doesn't return and somehow disappears from the flight log, Isabella travels to Washington where an ex-boyfriend, Alan (Peter Sarsgard) works for a Senator (Alan Arkin). Using his connections, Alan finds out as much as he can about Anwar's disappearance. The trail leads all the way to the head of the CI, Corinne Whitman (Meryl Streep).

Those are the main players in Rendition and their relative positions. Where director Gavin Hood moves them from there is quite compelling and heart rending. Running parallel to this main story is the modest love story of Khalid (Moa Khouas) and Fatima (Zineb Oukach), the daughter of Abasi Fawal, the lead torture expert.

The melding of these two stories is where Rendition struggles and becomes sluggish and where director Gavin Hood employs a narrative trick that will irritate many in the audience as much as it did me. There is a moment, and I won't go into detail, late in the film where the timeline shifts and what we get is a scene that lets the air out of what was an electrically charged and tense series of scenes.

From this point on the films dueling stories become fractured and I was left struggling to connect these stories at all beyond the most tenuous of bonds.

A man, if tortured long enough, will tell you anything you want to hear. Whether what he says is true or not, doesn't matter to the torturers whose reward is for information. The truth is someone else's business. Rendition is extraordinarily powerful in bringing home the same message that Senator John McCain has always talked of, how torture simply doesn't work. Indeed, as the film states plainly, if you torture one man you create ten more who will rise up to fight back to protect them, or rescue them.

According to the Bush administration, Americans don't torture. No, we don't. By laws installed during the Clinton Administration, we hire less reputable countries to torture on our behalf. Ah, but Rendition doesn't let us off so easily that a liberal like myself can be satisfied with the answer that our policy of rendition is simply wrong. The lead torture expert in the film is portrayed as a good man who loves his family and believes he is doing the right thing.

Meryl Streep's CIA agent may be cold hearted and portrayed as something of a monster but her point about the lives she believes have been saved by information gathered through extraordinary rendition is powerful and logical. With the blinding certainty of a zealot, not unlike a certain President of the United States, she sees only the possibilities of this practice, not the collateral damage to our national conscience.

The love story between Khalid and Fatima is used to illustrate what some experts would call blowback. Militarized by the torture death of his brother, Khalid is enticed to become a suicide bomber. Fatima becomes his reason to live and there is a good deal of emotion invested in this subplot. It might have been more powerful without director Gavin Hood's narrative cheat late in the film that sucks all of the suspense out of the movie.

Yet another film in this early Oscar season, like The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, like Michael Clayton, Across The Universe or Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Rendition is a film with Oscar pretensions that falls just short of expectations. A grand cast of Oscar nominees and winners, compel us from beginning to end but narrative trickery and a strung together plot; let the air out of what should have been a potboiler of real emotion and suspense.