← Back to Reviews
in
And here are my thoughts on....
The Constant Gardener (2005 - Fernando Meirelles)
Based on the best-selling John le Carré novel, it's a solid modern day conspiracy piece, though it falls short of any emotional impact for me. As the first English-language feature from Fernando Meirelles (Cidade de Deus), I was expecting a bit more. Perhaps unfairly expecting. It's a more than competent film with a well delivered message and important point-of-view I agree with, but as a story about two characters I never became involved the way I should have.
As far as big screen adaptations of le Carré, I’d put it behind The Russia House (1990 – Fred Schepisi) and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1965 – Martin Ritt), but squarely ahead of The Tailor of Panama (2001 – John Boorman) and The Little Drummer Girl (1984 – George Roy Hill)….though all those productions pale in comparison to the BBC mini-series "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" (1979) and "Smiley’s People" (1982) starring Alec Guinness.
The Constant Gardener is chillingly timely in many respects, and the portrayal of cool corruption feels correct. Ralph Fiennes is good as usual, playing another restrained and conflicted man. Rachel Weisz has been good at lighter comedic stuff but I wasn’t sure how she'd handle a role like this next to an actor like Fiennes: she holds her own just fine. Danny Houston is terrific as a duplicitous friend, and Bill Nighy is effortless playing the dark side of the coin of that character he played so magnificently in "The Girl in the Café" earlier this year, while Richard McCabe and Pete Postlethwaite are also stand-outs among the very good supporting cast. The look of the film is brought off nicely by cinematographer César Charlone who lensed City of God, and the international locations are used expertly.
But at its heart, the driving force behind the politics and conspiracies is the love story. Frankly I think the film falls sadly flat here, hollowing out the entire thing. This is at least partly a flawed design. The major factor driving the narrative train is that the husband doesn't really know what his wife was up to, and in fact maybe didn't know her as well as he thought he did. It's an interesting delimma, and Feinnes pulls off that interior turmoil wonderfully. BUT, the film is more or less from that character's perspective, and since he doesn't know who she really was that means we don't either. We may even have more faith in her than he does, but the fact is her character is purposefully obscured. What that did for me was make it difficult to care about her. I haven't read the book, but I'd bet the structure is the same there. While it may work perfectly for a 500-page novel, in a two-hour or so movie I think it severely lessens the fullest impact of the story. The conspiracy unwinds and unwinds, but I found myself again and again not really caring for the wife in any specifics.
When those specifics are finally revealed, it's a very emotional conclusion for the Feinnes character. But as a viewer...maybe not so much. Not for me, anyway. I don't see any real way around this for the screenwriter or director, as the structure dictated it had to be that way. And for the conspiracy elements it probably adds some mystery. But that distance really lowers my rating and recommendation for the movie. Which is a shame, because an intelligent and well acted movie like this is what the various Studios should be financing more of. Too bad it wasn't either more emotional or, barring that, more thrilling. A good movie, but not an amazing one. Given the personell involved, that's a bit disappointing.
GRADE: B
The Constant Gardener (2005 - Fernando Meirelles)
Based on the best-selling John le Carré novel, it's a solid modern day conspiracy piece, though it falls short of any emotional impact for me. As the first English-language feature from Fernando Meirelles (Cidade de Deus), I was expecting a bit more. Perhaps unfairly expecting. It's a more than competent film with a well delivered message and important point-of-view I agree with, but as a story about two characters I never became involved the way I should have.
As far as big screen adaptations of le Carré, I’d put it behind The Russia House (1990 – Fred Schepisi) and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1965 – Martin Ritt), but squarely ahead of The Tailor of Panama (2001 – John Boorman) and The Little Drummer Girl (1984 – George Roy Hill)….though all those productions pale in comparison to the BBC mini-series "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" (1979) and "Smiley’s People" (1982) starring Alec Guinness.
The Constant Gardener is chillingly timely in many respects, and the portrayal of cool corruption feels correct. Ralph Fiennes is good as usual, playing another restrained and conflicted man. Rachel Weisz has been good at lighter comedic stuff but I wasn’t sure how she'd handle a role like this next to an actor like Fiennes: she holds her own just fine. Danny Houston is terrific as a duplicitous friend, and Bill Nighy is effortless playing the dark side of the coin of that character he played so magnificently in "The Girl in the Café" earlier this year, while Richard McCabe and Pete Postlethwaite are also stand-outs among the very good supporting cast. The look of the film is brought off nicely by cinematographer César Charlone who lensed City of God, and the international locations are used expertly.
But at its heart, the driving force behind the politics and conspiracies is the love story. Frankly I think the film falls sadly flat here, hollowing out the entire thing. This is at least partly a flawed design. The major factor driving the narrative train is that the husband doesn't really know what his wife was up to, and in fact maybe didn't know her as well as he thought he did. It's an interesting delimma, and Feinnes pulls off that interior turmoil wonderfully. BUT, the film is more or less from that character's perspective, and since he doesn't know who she really was that means we don't either. We may even have more faith in her than he does, but the fact is her character is purposefully obscured. What that did for me was make it difficult to care about her. I haven't read the book, but I'd bet the structure is the same there. While it may work perfectly for a 500-page novel, in a two-hour or so movie I think it severely lessens the fullest impact of the story. The conspiracy unwinds and unwinds, but I found myself again and again not really caring for the wife in any specifics.
When those specifics are finally revealed, it's a very emotional conclusion for the Feinnes character. But as a viewer...maybe not so much. Not for me, anyway. I don't see any real way around this for the screenwriter or director, as the structure dictated it had to be that way. And for the conspiracy elements it probably adds some mystery. But that distance really lowers my rating and recommendation for the movie. Which is a shame, because an intelligent and well acted movie like this is what the various Studios should be financing more of. Too bad it wasn't either more emotional or, barring that, more thrilling. A good movie, but not an amazing one. Given the personell involved, that's a bit disappointing.
GRADE: B