Z

By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

The Torontonian Reviews PRISONERS

PRISONERS

Rarely does a director have two films at one festival, and a year or two from now, it might be that 2013 was Denis Villeneuve’s start to directing celebrity. Here in Toronto with not one but two films starring Jake Gyllenhaal (Prisoners and Enemy have debuted with much buzz), the French-Canadian director is fast on his way to being a known quantity in the United States.

Prisoners resembles the likes of your above-average beach read (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), and the mystery unfolds in a similar way. The universally understood hook—the sudden disappearance of two small girls—takes hold almost immediately, capturing our attention with stomach-churning horror. The run-time teeters at two and a half hours, so there are red herrings, deductions, and interrogations that emerge before the grand reveal of where these girls are and what has happened to them. But it’s hard to look away or quickly hop to the washroom, as every scene holds a piece of the puzzle.

An unspoiled viewing of the film is so completely engrossing that every little clue or tidbit rattles and teases us. But the best mystery films are often those that withstand repeated viewings, for we watch these movies again and again to revisit how expertly handled each revelation is and how the characters react to them. Prisoners is this kind of mystery movie, though some may find its meaty length to be tolerable only once. Perhaps, but the title of the film is just as thematic as it is literal, and there is much to analyze here.

Hugh Jackman and Terrence Howard play the fathers of the missing girls, while Maria Bello and Viola Davis are their respective wives. “How far would you go?” asks the film’s tagline, which speaks to the desperation of distraught Keller Dover (Jackman). When Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) struggles to find answers in that critical first week of the kidnapping, Keller takes matters into his own hands, using unethical approaches to gain new information. A prime suspect (Paul Dano) becomes the focus of Keller’s attention, and what happens next is a morality test for everyone involved (the audience included). Jackman and Gyllenhaal make some excellent dramatic turns here, and the cast in general feels pitch-perfect. Similarly, while Dano’s mentally challenged character says very little, his facial expressions do not.

Writer Aaron Guzikowski has also woven some Christian overtones into the script, which may both divide and intrigue audiences. The film opens on a wintry forest scene: a deer stands majestically in the woods, and the camera pulls back slowly before revealing the end of a rifle. The Lord’s Prayer is narrated by Jackman’s character before the deer falls, providing venison for Thanksgiving dinner. The film has many moments like these featuring overt Christian themes, though I found they only added to the three-dimensionality of the morals in flux. It rounds out the film nicely, adding an extra layer of character development to the players in this story of small-town America.

There are so many directors who could take this script and do a decently crafted job of it, but hopefully some readers remember 2010’s impeccable Incendies, Canada’s foreign-language entry for the 2011 Academy Awards. That film was exemplary in proving Villeneuve’s restraint and mastery of pace, but its box office numbers make it clear Villeneuve has yet to reach the amount of eyeballs his work deserves. Prisoners has the strength and profile to significantly boost Villeneuve’s international visibility, because the director has shown he is just as capable with a studio budget as he is with an independent one. He simply doesn’t let the film’s sprawl get away from him, and the final product is exquisitely cohesive.

When it is released, Prisoners will be popular because of its narrative accessibility, its unpretentious approach to sensitive and artistic filmmaking, and its A-list cast that fires on all cylinders. The film is great and totally worthy of a major splash, and if you enjoy Prisoners in a big way, I implore you to go back to Incendies for more. Villeneuve is breaking through, and this realized potential is great for all movie fans—not just those interested in Canadian film.

PRISONERS

One Response to “The Torontonian Reviews PRISONERS”

  1. Shirley Rowden says:

    This film was anything but exquisitely cohesive. Bob Taylor who drew the maze and sneaked in both houses and stole the girls clothes and smeared them with pig’s blood and put them in crates with snakes and then shot himself when he was being questioned had nothing to do with the plot except confusion. Why did he buy girls clothes at the store and steal the real clothes? It was never explained how he connected to any part of the story except to confuse. Was he kidnapped and got away and that’s how he knew about the necklace??? I sure didn’t see that.

    Why did the first girl found point at Dover and say he put tape on her mouth which somehow told him who the killer was so he ran out of the hospital room. Dover didn’t kidnap her and didn’t put tape on her mouth so why was that even in the script?

    Alex didn’t seem to have the mentality of a 10-year old. He was just mean when he stared Dover down when he hung the dog and then sang the song the girls made up to taunt Dover. He might have been mistreated by that crazy woman but he knew she had the girls so he was culpable.

    We didn’t need all that stuff thrown in and it had nothing to do with the plot. If it was cohesive to the plot, please explain it to all of us who don’t get it.

Leave a Reply

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Chad Harbach spent ten years writing his novel. It was his avocation, for which he was paid nothing, with no guarantee he’d ever be paid anything, while he supported himself doing freelance work, for which I don’t think he ever made $30,000 a year. I sold his book for an advance that equated to $65,000 a year—before taxes and commission—for each of the years of work he’d put in. The law schools in this country churn out first-year associates at white-shoe firms that pay them $250,000 a year, when they’re twenty-five years of age, to sit at a desk doing meaningless bullshit to grease the wheels of the corporatocracy, and people get upset about an excellent author getting $65,000 a year? Give me a fucking break.”
~ Book Agent Chris Parris-Lamb On The State Of The Publishing Industry

INTERVIEWER
Do you think this anxiety of yours has something to do with being a woman? Do you have to work harder than a male writer, just to create work that isn’t dismissed as being “for women”? Is there a difference between male and female writing?

FERRANTE
I’ll answer with my own story. As a girl—twelve, thirteen years old—I was absolutely certain that a good book had to have a man as its hero, and that depressed me. That phase ended after a couple of years. At fifteen I began to write stories about brave girls who were in serious trouble. But the idea remained—indeed, it grew stronger—that the greatest narrators were men and that one had to learn to narrate like them. I devoured books at that age, and there’s no getting around it, my models were masculine. So even when I wrote stories about girls, I wanted to give the heroine a wealth of experiences, a freedom, a determination that I tried to imitate from the great novels written by men. I didn’t want to write like Madame de La Fayette or Jane Austen or the Brontës—at the time I knew very little about contemporary literature—but like Defoe or Fielding or Flaubert or Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or even Hugo. While the models offered by women novelists were few and seemed to me for the most part thin, those of male novelists were numerous and almost always dazzling. That phase lasted a long time, until I was in my early twenties, and it left profound effects.
~ Elena Ferrante, Paris Review Art Of Fiction No. 228

Z Z