I saw The Constant Gardener last night and walked away unmoved.
Do I sympathize with the storyteller’s passion to expose the cover-ups of corporations, and to speak the truth about the exploitation of the vulnerable in Africa? I have little doubt that this kind of corruption is a reality. And it makes me sick just thinking about it. There’s probably a great film about this just waiting to be made. If someone made that film, I’d be shouting about it from the rooftops.
This isn’t that movie.
When you heavy-handedly preach about corruption through art, it ceases to be art and becomes propaganda. Propaganda is usually well received by those who already agree with it but it rarely persuades anyone to believe othewise. In The Constant Gardener, important messages are interwoven through a long list of preposterous events that could only happen in a Hollywood movie. And that’s too bad.
Problem #1 — The romance of Diplomat Quayle and Tessa. Okay, he delivers a dull lecture… he’s attacked by one of the students listening to him, Tessa… and five minutes later, he and that student are rolling around in bed.
And we’re supposed to find this romantic? We’re supposed to respect these people? We’re supposed to see them as individuals of integrity? Give me a break! Right off the bat, I wouldn’t trust these two with an international investigation any farther than I can throw them.
And then, right away, they’re married! How did that happen?
Wait a minute. This movie wants my heart to break for Africa before it’s over? If so, it’s got to stop distracting us with Diplomat Quayle’s tormented flashbacks about flirting with pretty, pregnant Tessa in the bathtub. Our heart shouldn’t be breaking because gorgeous Rachel Weisz was betrayed. It should be breaking for Africa. Instead, we get Tessa switching back and forth between sexy mode and zealous Michael Moore-mode, something that keeps the focus on her instead of the crisis.
Problem #2: How Hollywood is this movie? When Diplomat Quayle needs top-secret information, just in time he stumbles onto The Kid Who Can Hack Into Anything.
Problem #3: There are moments that happen far too conveniently. Quayle seems to stumble onto everything he needs, right when he needs it, all along the way. And bad guys have a tendency of showing up in person far too conveniently as well, as if they’re all in a van following him around, waiting to step out whenever necessary.
I had lost any ability to believe what was happening by the time Quayle jumps off a plane in an African settlement, tracks down an eccentric doctor, and mild-manneredly gets this guy to spill his guts about corruption and confess to his role in a crime in just a matter of moments… while, at the same time, murderous bandits suddenly arrive to destroy the camp! This guy’s timing is unbelievable!
CAUTION: MAJOR SPOILERS!
Problem #4: The conclusion pulls a familiar file from the Thriller Conclusion box–embarrass the bad guy in front of a big crowd. This particular conclusion is usually quite dramatic, but also hard to believe. Here, it felt just as contrived as the conclusion of Minority Report.
(In fact, you could do an in-depth comparison of Minority Report and find a lot of parallels, I think… from the dead wife right down to the flawed, doomed hero who goes on the run from agents sent to kill him, even as he tries to uncover the truth.)
Having just seen Serenity, I can’t help but note that the Hero of the Moment seems to be the one who slowly wakes up to the government’s corruption, resists getting involved because of the hassle, but then is persuaded to track down the evidence, and finally risks his life to get that evidence broadcast to the rest of the world, to expose and bring down the tyrant and his lies. These stories operate on the assumption that a world of evils can be traced to an easily-exposed lie, and if that lie is just brought into the light by a noble investigative reporter, things can be fixed. A nice idea, but unrealistic.
It also pivots on the exchange, “Do you believe you can redeem yourself for your sins?” “Yes, I do.” Again, a nice idea. But it doesn’t work. We know, on some level, that human beings, no matter how gushingly their hearts bleed for one another, can’t save the world on their own strength. They need to appeal to a Higher Power. And no one in The Constant Gardener ever looks up.
I must, however, note that Fernando Mereilles is an immensely talented director who has a formidable command of style and editing. Ralph Fiennes is fine, and Rachel Weisz is radiant as always. So the film does have its strong points.
It’s just guilty of many of the same faults that mucked up the seemingly “un-muckable” premise of In My Country. (How is it that a film about the South African Reconciliation Hearings sent me away more bewildered by the sight of Samuel Jackson and Juliet Binoche having sex than burdened by the weight of what happened there?!) If your story is about a massive, historic crisis, don’t dilute the material with something as trivial as a shallow love story.
That’s disappointing to hear. I’m a big fan of Meirelles’ first film City of God. It sounds like he was brought in to be a style-doctor for a Hollywood script.
I tried reading the Le Carre novel before this movie came out and I could hardly get past a few chapters. That might have been an omen of things to come.
Personally I am heartened by the fact that more responded positively than not. It is so easy to focus on the fact that our faith indeed has some of who look with hate first rather than love (as the mass media is so apt to do) but Christians themselves cannot fail to see that what we believe is represented more by the good then the bad. I notice often times that Christians who take an interest in the arts often have a rather low opinion of their fellow believers and it seems to color their attitudes towards anything Christian overall. It’s a fine line to walk between condemnation and love but it is something we ,who think we “know better,” must balance. Because if we cannot look positively upon our own faith and those who adhere to it how can we expect the rest of society to?
(None of this is to say you, Jeffrey, think this way but others have taken up a rather negative perspective.)
I skimmed the page and saw a greater number of positive comments than I expected…
Yes! Of course you should review movies like “Brokeback Mountain.” If you don’t, why bother to review any movie at all? Frankly, I am embarrassed by the ignorance of fellow believers in regard to the arts and in regard to the Bible. Has anyone ever read and openly discussed the Old Testament? Nothing in “Brokeback…” even comes close to what was going on during the times of the Judges! Sin isn’t something to stick our heads in the sand about; it shows us how far away from God we truly are and how much we need Christ to form any connection with Him! “Brokeback Mountain” is another example of Ang Lee on a good day. It sumptuously tells a story (written by the distinguished author Annie Proulx) that raises a whole lot of questions that it doesn’t even pretend to answer. The love between Ennis and Jack is portrayed achingly and tragically. Their intense mutual need for community and companionship is undeniable and should be quite familiar to us all. They reached out for one another as the only convenient sources for staving off the hunger in their souls. The physical act of sex between the two men gave a concreteness to the confusion of swirling desires within them. The relationship could have been between a man and a woman, two women or any other combination. How could one not feel compassion for these two? Because we bond with those who meet our needs—however immorally or incompletely or inconsistently the needs are met—we make ourselves vulnerable to any manner of wrong and unhealthy relationships. Infants and children bond with a mother who meets their needs only to have the very same mother drown these children in a bathtub someday. As Christians, I’d like to see us reach out and meet the needs of unbelievers and believers alike, needs they don’t even understand or validate. We say we have The Answer, the One Who Satisfies. But I’m afraid we are so busy putting on blinders, plugging our ears and irresponsibly tossing Scripture (out of context, as usual) from such a distance that reaching out to anybody and actually touching him or her is difficult if not downright impossible. By the way, the review was awesome (though somewhat measured), and I’d have given the film 3.5 stars. Believe it or not, I think it could have used another 15 minutes!
Blessings,
Cielle