There is a theory, in the realms of film criticism, that whenever a film is released that is reminiscent of cinema made in the 1970s, it will be praised far more than it actually deserves. Perhaps it is because collectively, as the filmgoing public, we miss the style of filmmaking from that era. Or, it may be because the advancement in computer technology means that any film which uses visual effects sparingly reminds us of a time when everything was shot on location. Whatever the reason, I have to wonder whether the critical praise heaped upon Joe Carnahan's The Grey was garnered through the fact that it is quite similar to survival horror movies of the 1970s and 80s, like Deliverance and Southern Comfort? It is not as if The Grey is a bad film, it is just that there is too much missing to make it truly interesting.
Liam Neeson stars as John Ottman, a man whose job it is to kill wolves that threaten an Alaskan oil drilling team. After completing the job, Ottman, and the team of drillers, head home on a plane which crashes midway through its flight due to a strong blizzard. When Ottman regains consciousness, he finds that the plane has crashed in the Alaskan wilderness in the middle of a wolves lair, and that only a handful of the drilling crew are left alive. The small group of survivors realise that their only chance for survival is to head south and to try and find civilisation before they are picked off, one by one, by the wild animals.
Unfortunately, just from the synopsis, the film encounters its first problem. Which is, that the set up is ridiculous under close scrutiny. All planes, even small, single-engined planes, are equipped with emergency beacons for these kind of situations. It is also fairly well established that they have some shelter at the crash site, which is imperative when staying alive under these circumstances. Had the film set up some sort of avalanche, or a plot device which made staying with the plane an impossibility, that would have at least been plausible. Although, nothing is quite as silly as believing that walking into the frozen wastes of Alaska, where the wolves have free rein, is the smartest idea. It stretches suspension of disbelief because it is set up that Ottman "knows wolves", and that he is an expert in reading wolvine behaviour. As a setup this is lazy to the point of insulting, and they should have thought of a more dramatic way of getting them out in the open.
This criticism of the lack of realism may seem like nitpicking, but I found it to be extremely manipulative at points, especially in the way the wolves are presented. Although, to be fair, at times they do attempt realism, but only with the humans. For example, after the plane crashes, the group of survivors discover one of the passengers bleeding to death; Ottman helps ease the man into a calm state of mind before he dies, even telling him that he should think of his loved ones. This scene is very well handled, so it is strange that the wolves are always presented as ravenous beasts, even when unthreatened. Given the fact that the American public, by and large, has an irrational fear of wolves, the use of realism in some scenes makes it seem as if this film sincerely represents how wild animals act, when it is does no such thing.
Regrettably, overall, this is a fairly flawed film, with narrative and character development issues appearing at every possible moment. For instance, despite the fact that there are several characters, only Ottman is developed. The rest of the characters, namely the drillers, are underdeveloped and given only a few minutes of character development between them. In those few minutes, they are fleshed out a little more, but it does little to change the fact that they are merely wolf bait, padding out the film's running time to feature length. We are never really given a reason to care about these men, and that is a shame, because otherwise they may as well have left Liam Neeson to be the only surviver.
However, having said all this, there is plenty right with it. For example, the visual effects, while rubbery, are used sparingly. For the majority of the film, until the final scene, the wolves are always out of focus or just out of view. So a lot of the terror of the Alaskan wilderness is kept to the imagination. Also, the harsh, winter setting is real, and reportedly, at times the temperature on the shoot was as low as minus 40 degrees centigrade; giving the characters' circumstance, at least in regard to weather, a real authenticity. This is what gives the film an old fashioned feeling, as this is exactly how computer-generated effects, for the most part, should be handled. Computer effects were not introduced to filmmakers to recreate entire landscapes (except with films like Tron, where that is the point), but as a tool. Here they allow the on camera action do the work, and then complete the shot with a fuzzy, out-of-focus, computer generated wolf or two.
Other positives are the casting of Liam Neeson in the lead role and Joe Carnahan's direction. Both have spent the best part of the past direction making dumb, loud, unintelligent action films, so it is good to see both doing something more organic and visceral. Of course, Neeson, before the year 2000, was known for making artistic dramas such as Schindler's List, yet he has reemerged as the unlikeliest of action stars, given his age and his art-house credibility. Carnahan, started making films such as Narc, which had a really bleak, nihilistic streak beneath it, yet in the past few years he started making films such as The A-Team remake. It is nice to see that both are back to making films which are reminiscent of the kind of films they were making earlier in their careers.
Unfortunately, no matter how good the effects, the direction or Neeson's performance is, there is an underlying condescending attitude that the film carries throughout. I am not just talking about the situation with the plane or the manipulative way they present the behaviour of wild animals, although they are both part of it. At times, during the quieter moments of the film, it attempts to be philosophical about religion, with characters talking about fate and miracles. However, there seems to be a lack of sincerity to these moments, and they are clunky handled. Like the way the film preys on America's irrational fear of wild animals, this seems to be playing to the cheap seats in the American Bible belt. It does not handle the religious sections intelligently, it simply seems to be sneering at the dumb audience members who will lap up any film that has even the briefest mention of God or religion.
In conclusion, while this is well constructed and is a fantastic example of how to use computer-generated effects on a budget, it is also deliberately dense, manipulative and insulting. There is fun to be had here, so long as one does not take any of the film's "deeper" moments at all seriously.
6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment