"Prisoners"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) is a good dad. He is a bit intense, maybe. But he is definitely a good dad. So when his daughter, Anna, and her friend, Joy, mysteriously disappear from a Thanksgiving Day celebration, Dover is willing to do what any good dad would do to find his daughter—that is, just about anything.

Right off the bat we know something bad is going to happen. The first part of the movie is full of slow, voyeuristic panning shots that angle around trees, over hills, or through windows. It is like we are watching in on this family, perhaps waiting to pounce, or perhaps just spying on their unfolding drama. And then it happens. The girls are gone. They disappear without a trace.

When a quick and frantic search comes up empty, we are led to suspect that some guy in this old, gross camper that we saw parked outside, popped out and took the girls. That is what Dover thinks happened. So he calls the cops and lets them know.

The authorities find the camper almost immediately. After a tense semi-maybe-sorta-standoff, Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) apprehends Alex Jones (Paul Dano). Alex looks super sketchy, super creepy, and super duper guilty. But, as we are reminded throughout the movie, appearances can be misleading. It turns out Alex is mentally challenged, and perhaps only looked like he was caught red handed because he was scared and overwhelmed. The hard evidence really isn’t there. So, after a thorough search, Detective Loki lets Alex go.

Dover is not convinced. Or, scratch that; Dover is convinced … that Alex did it. Dover is frantic, and his gut tells him that Alex at least knows where his daughter is. Detective Loki is willing to listen to Dover’s theories. However, he also wants to make sure Dover stays under control.

But Dover is willing to do anything, including some not-OK stuff, to get his daughter back. This is understandable, but still, what we have here is a standard “Well what would you do?” kind of moral conundrum. Except, to be honest, somehow this case does not feel standard. Maybe it’s just because High Jackman plays the part perfectly, or because director Denis Villeneuve does a great job building the tension, but somehow certain elements of this movie that one might expect to come out same-old-same-old actually end up being very real and very powerful.

There is this great moment when we are all coming to grips with how the whole investigation is playing out, and Dover is taking a moment to get centered and figure out what he should do. Dover finds himself reciting the Lord’s Prayers (as he often does). He is cruising through it, going seamlessly from  “Our Father who art in heaven” to “Thy kingdom come” to “Forgive us our trespasses as we …”. But then he stops. It’s unclear why. It’s unclear whether Dover even recognizes that he has stopped. Something keeps Dover from finishing the line. Yet we, the audience, get it. Without feeling duped or preached at, we are sharply reminded how much easier it is to ask for (and expect!) forgiveness for our trespasses than it is to grant forgiveness to those who have trespassed against us.

“Prisoners” is extremely well done, superbly acted, and just downright hard to watch. It is so hard to watch. And I mean that in the best possible way. It is one of those movies that may actually make you feel good afterward, but only like when you wake up from a bad dream and are just so glad that that’s not your life. This movie is that alarming and effective.

And it has layers. It has subtle religious and (perhaps) political intrigue. It raises all sorts of interesting moral questions. And it even plays with our expectations about the genre—it is, with a healthy dose of self-awareness, interested in what we should expect from stories like this, plots like this, characters like this, and movies like this.

At first I thought “Prisoners” was a movie I deemed successful, but which I would never want to see again. But I already want to see it again. That is, if I can take it.

"The Grandmaster"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

-->

Ip Man (Tony Leung Chi Wai) is a Kung Fu master. I know for sure he could beat me up. Actually, it wouldn’t even be a fight. I would land zero punches; I would cause zero stress. I can only imagine lying flat on my back with a bruised kidney and absolutely no clue what just happened.

We get an even better sense of the Kung-Fu-godliness of Ip Man right off the bat in “The Grandmaster”. There are about 20 guys looking for a fight. They surround Ip Man. But, of course, the throng of fighters lacks the good sense to just mob their victim all at once. So, one-by-one, Ip Man mops the floor with each and every one of them.

Now that we know to be impressed by Ip Man we can get on with the story. Ip Man is rich and happy. He has a nice family tucked away in southern China. Ip Man spends his free time beating up on anyone who wants to fight him. But he does it in a way that is sort of gentle, even kind. Ip Man is a good man livin’ the good life.

Then everything gets shaken up. A rivalry threatens Ip Man’s honor, as well as his family. A war with Japan rends the countryside, tearing Ip Man from the life that he loves. And even when the dust settles, Ip Man has to start anew in less than ideal circumstances while still dealing with the pain already inflicted upon him.

Ip Man has an advantage, though. He knows how to cope with pain. Many of those around him are not so lucky. Some are consumed by vengeance. Others who are obsessed with their status fade into oblivion when the times change. Scene by scene, we see how different people with different dispositions deal with others, respond to hardship, and confront their enemies. Each person has to find his or her own way.

In many ways “The Grandmaster” is pretty unoriginal. The characters are archetypes: There is The Greedy Person, The Vengeful Person, The Strong, Silent Warrior, etc. We learn about these characters mostly through the way they fight (which, I should admit, is tremendously entertaining). Indeed, most of the important lessons occur right before, right after, or during a fight. This makes the plot feel a bit attenuated and impressionistic. It doesn’t always seem like it matters what happens next.

Nonetheless, there are some ways in which “The Grandmaster” stands out. Here is one small detail: Feet. Filmmaker Wong Kar Wai spends a lot of time—particularly during the fighting—focusing on people’s feet. It turns out you can tell a lot about a person by his or her feet. Not by how his or her feet actually look (We don’t see any bare feet, thankfully). But by what they do, and by how they are positioned. Do they thrash indiscriminately at anything that moves? Or are they disciplined and careful? Are they positioned in a defensive stance? Or are they poised for attack? Do they seem relaxed and in harmony with the ground below? Or does it look like their very presence is assaulting the floor? You can tell a lot about person by his or her feet, I learned. And focusing on characters’ feet is a neat way to get to know them. Sometimes a face just won’t do.

So while “The Grandmaster” is in some ways rather pat, in other ways it shows off a special richness. Combine that with beautiful cinematography and great musical selections, and “The Grandmaster” makes for a pretty good movie.