Chris Hemsworth takes on hunger, the sea and a very big whale In the Heart of the Sea |
That Melville framing device is a good place to start when
reviewing the many problems of In the Heart of the Sea, Ron Howard’s misfiring
attempt at a survivalist epic. When we should be consumed by concern at whether
these men survive, the film keeps trying to get us care as much about whether
Melville will write a novel worthy of Hawthorne. The clunky prologue eats up a
good sixth of the film, and we keep cutting back for Gleeson to tell us things the
script isn’t deft enough to show us. Worse, it keeps ripping us way from the
survivalist story that should be film’s heart.
Howard should know this: he directed one of the best
survival-against-the-odds films ever in Apollo 13. Maybe the difference
is that Apollo 13 is, at heart, a hopeful story. In the Heart of the
Sea is about grimy sailors in a trade the film can’t find any sympathy for,
eventually drawing lots in a long boat to see who is going to get killed and
eaten by the others. It’s the sort of thing Werner Herzog would (pardon the
metaphor) eat up for breakfast. For Howard, a fundamentally optimistic film-maker,
its an ill fit. No wonder he wants to end the film with the triumph of Moby
Dick.
In the Heart of the Sea is the rare instance of a
film that is too short. The narration keeps skipping over time jumps in the
first hour, that means we don’t get invested in the characters (most of whom
are barely distinguished from each other, especially as beards and wasted
bodies become the uniform). The sinking doesn’t take place until almost an hour
in the film, meaning the time we spend with them lost in boats is a mere 40
minutes or so.
That is nowhere long enough for us to get a sense of either
the monotonous time or the ravages hunger and desperation have made. Difficult
as that stuff is to film – and I can appreciate its hard to make five men
sitting, dying slowly, in a boat visually interesting – it means the film is
asking us to make a big leap when it goes in five minutes from the men leaving
a stop on an abandoned island to regretfully slicing one of their party up for
dinner. We need to really understand how desperation has led to this point, but
the film keeps jumping forward, as if its impatient to get to it.
Understanding is a general problem in the film. It can’t get
past the fact that, today, we don’t see whaling (rightly so) as a sympathetic
trade. But to these men, plunging a harpoon into a whale wasn’t an act of
barbarous evil. It was more than even just making a living: it was a noble
calling. Several times the film makes feeble attempts to push its characters
towards moral epiphanies which seem jarringly out of chase (would Owen Chase, a
hardy whaler with multiple kills, really hold his hand when confronted with a
whale he thinks is trying to kill him?). Clumsy parallels are drawn between the
heartless corporate oil industry of today, and the ‘suits’ back at Nantucket
who only care about the bottom line.
Without accepting that, to these men, striving out into the
ocean to bring back whale oil was as glorious a cause as landing on the moon,
the film struggles to make most of the earlier part of the film interesting.
Hard to sympathise with the characters, when the film is holding their
profession at a sniffy distance. The film even radically changes the future
career of its hero, Owen Chase, claiming he joined the merchant navy and never
whaled again (not remotely true).
On top of this, Howard doesn’t manage to make the act of
sailing feel as real or as compelling as, say, Peter Weir did in Master and
Commander. Everything has a slightly unconvincing CGI sheen. Strange
fish-eyed lenses keep popping up zooming in on specific features of pulleys and
sails (is it meant to be like a whale’s eye view?). The film never manages to
really communicate the tasks taking place or the risks they carry. There is a
feeble personality clash between Pollard and Chase that fills much of the
second act of the film, but is written and acted with a perfunctory
predictability that never makes it interesting.
You can’t argue with the commitment of everyone involved.
The cast noticeably wasted themselves down to portray these starving dying men.
But it all adds up to not a lot. Chris Hemsworth gives a constrained
performance as Chase – his chiselled Hollywood bulk looks hideously out of
place – while Cillian Murphy makes the most impact among the rest as his
luckless best friend. But the film’s main failure is Howard’s inability to make
us really feel every moment of these men’s agonising suffering and to
really understand the desperation that drove them to lengths no man
should go to. Eventually that only makes it a surprisingly disengaging
experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.