There were three movies I was most looking forward to this year. Jurassic World, The Revenant, and this one. The first exceeded my expectations, the second probably will. This one was a fine film, and it didn't really disappoint, so at least there's that.
I haven't read the book, but I knew most of the story. And, of course, Moby-Dick is one of my favorite books. But I think this movie is getting pretty mild reviews because viewers are expecting an epic like Moby-Dick. FUN FACT: This isn't an adaptation of Moby-Dick. So if you, like the multitude of critics out there, are expecting a sweeping odyssey for god and glory, for vengeance and vanity, you can skip this movie rather than bash it.
Ultimately, this is a pretty intimate film. Focused on the crew of the Essex and its doomed voyage in the desert-like mid-Pacific, this film concerns itself with practical matters and personal conflicts. Benjamin Walker (Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter), Chris Hemsworth, and Cillian Murphy play the captain and mates of the ship, ever at odds and determined to lead the crew to success. Of course, one poor decision leads to another, and eventually the crew find themselves adrift in small whaling boats on trackless seas, preyed upon by a whale with a vendetta. Madness and desperation follow, as the men roast under an equatorial sun and resort to cannibalism to survive. The performances are intense and focused, and their physical transformations are no small wonder. Of course, their accents are all over the board, and Hemsworth's is cringe-worthy at times, but it's not the worst sin imaginable.
Especially wonderful in the film are Ben Whishaw as Herman Melville and Brendan Gleeson as Thomas Nickerson, Melville's main source in crafting his masterpiece. I could have hardly asked for more this holiday season than seeing Whishaw and Gleeson sitting opposite each other, each tearing up as the story unfolds, each battling inner demons. And young wonder Tom Holland (The Impossible, Wolf Hall) holds his own amidst the grown men. Unfortunately, there is little time to dwell on any particular character, as the film is rather action/adventure oriented, and the script is so streamlined.
We move along at a quick clip, which is fine in encompassing a journey that takes at least a year (I lost count of the subtitles and voice-overs declaring that yet 3 more months had passed), but it certainly limits the impact of themes at work. Though the film certainly plays with themes from Moby-Dick, such as suggesting divine or demonic motivations behind the antagonist, the abilities of men in the face of nature, and the relativity of sanity, it never really delves deeply into any of them. I suppose that's alright, and it more effectively informs the character Melville's final moments of dialogue.
I could wax ad nauseam on the tonal curiosities (and, at least in my opinion, ambiguities) of the film, and my feelings about them, both positive and negative. But I won't here, because it will take me at least another viewing to understand how the film works as a whole. But I would like to talk a bit about Ron Howard. Though many of his films tend to be tonally, well, curious and inconsistent, there can be little doubt about his aesthetic approach to each film. Like a chameleon, he alters his visual style for each picture; always distinctive, always different. This film is no different, as it takes an almost handheld approach to the action on the high seas, shaking from point of interest to point of interest with great speed and gritty hyperrealism. Dipping below the waves and above, we are always reminded by the camera that we are in the heat of the action. Interspersed are a few wide shots that remind us how small these men are in the vast stretches of ocean. There are also no small amount of curious close-ups to details -- a quill in an inkwell, the wheel that pulls the anchor, the tip of a harpoon -- as well as super close-ups to faces. I'm not sure why Howard strung together so many different kinds of shots in such specific ways, but my impression was simply that of hyperrealism and of drawing the audience in. Every shot is gritty and often even the lens is dirty or water-spotted. I expect this is simply to satisfy the 3-D crowd, but I found it effective in 2-D as well.
This isn't going to be a big award winner, but I expect it to at least get a nomination for production design, special effects, and maybe cinematography, make-up, and score. Maybe even adapted screenplay, but as I said, I haven't read the source material. It's certainly a worthwhile film to see in theaters, and sure to please everyone who likes action, adventure, drama, history, and cannibalism.
IMDb: In the Heart of the Sea
No comments:
Post a Comment