A widower discovers that the ghastly, vicious murder of his wife may be the result of a conspiracy involving a greedy pharmaceutical company, a conspiracy to cover-up the negative side-effects of a new drug currently being tested.
I bring up Constant Gardener's odd similarity with The Fugitive not to harp on the new film. It's a fast-paced, nice-looking thriller anchored by solid performances from Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. It's just strange to me that an Important Film like The Constant Gardener, a film noted in its time for its bold statements about corporate greed and international human rights, shares much of its content and perspective with a decade-old chase movie.
In reality, The Constant Gardener isn't terribly insightful or provocative. If you're the kind of person who would be surprised to learn that corporate executives value profits over human lives, then yeah, this movie might very well blow your mind. But near as I can tell, the most "shocking" revelation in the movie is that sometimes, government diplomats serve their nation's own gredy interests rather than looking out for the welfare of poor Africans.
You don't say...
The gardener of the title is Justin Quayle (Fiennes), a gentlemanly pencil-pusher for Her Majesty's Government working out of Kenya. When his outspoken activist wife Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is found brutally raped and murdered in an overturned car, Justin is driven to uncover the secrets that may have led to her death. In the process, he will make the personal transformation from tweedy yes-man to outraged soldier for Justice.
Meirelles film is at its best when exploring Justin's internal journey. Fiennes does nice work as a tormented man who becomes obsessed with uncovering an ugly truth. Early on in the film, he discovers that a trusted colleague (American Danny Huston, employing the most spotty British accent I can recall from a recent film) may have been carrying on an affair with Tessa, and his sublimated rage is pretty convincing.
But as an expose of corporate malfeasance, Constant Gardener is pretty damn limp. The "conspiracy" at the heart of the film is pretty obvious right from the start, and even the movie seems to acknowledge at times that Justin's quest is more to discover the dry specifics of an illicit agreement than blow the lid off some shadowy Crime of the Century. The actual "secrets" Tessa may be on the verge of revealing aren't even all that secret or well-hidden, and though Justin may eventually produce a letter serving as "proof" of wrongdoing, his entire ordeal kind of comes off as overblown. Granted, the point of the film is that systems exist in Africa to repress progressive change for the better, but still...it would be nice to feel that Justin's crusade wasn't entirely pointless, if the movie plans to build up any real suspense.
Also overblown are Meirelles directorial choices. His Brazilian debut City of God was a breathless, rapid-fire journey through the slums of Rio, and part of the fun of getting sucked into its world of thugs and street kids was falling into groove with its relentless pace. Certain scenes exuded the playfulness and mastery of technique that mark the films of De Palma and Scorsese. That film announced this guy to the world.
He employs a similar style in Constant Gardener, but the effect is lost. This sort of espionage story just feels inappropriate to Meirelles impressionistic, hand-held, quick-cut style. His direction constantly calls attention to itself, particularly the frequent and jarring insertion of flashbacks in jump cuts. You'll see, for example, Justin gazing out the window longingly intercut with quick images of Tessa professing her love for him. Then back to Justin. Then cut to a letter with some threatening words scrawled on it. Then an African kid jumping. Then back to Tessa. Then Justin again.
It gets old quick, and it doesn't succeed in making the film more gripping or intense or surprising.
Also, as long as I'm complaining, Jeffrey Caine's script includes some pretty wretched, unrealistic dialogue. As long as he's dealing with conspiracy talk or wonky technical language, he's fine, but a few of the main couple's scenes together feature some real groaners. Take one of the film's opening scenes, where Justin initially meets Tessa after he gives a lecture. She challenges him on the Iraq War (the only time it's mentioned in the movie) and they have a pretty heated argument, and then suddenly, the whole conversation spins around completely and they start flirting. It's totally awkward and unconvincing, a clear case of someone writing themselves into a corner and simply forcing their characters into behavior that artificially moves along the plot.
"Hey, if you're done having this totally different perspective from me that drives our entire relationship thus far, let's go have a drink and then sex!"
I'm not saying Constant Gardener is a bad film, or that its essential message isn't an important one. Pharmaceutical companies, I have no doubt, are full of twisted assholes who would be willing to sacrifice the lives of Africans or British diplomats and their wives if it meant millions more dollars in profits. Western aid packages sent to Central and West Africa often don't find their way to the individuals who most need the help. Governments look the other way while innocents needly suffer every day. I'm not denying this stuff is true, or even that these are important subjects to be covered in a film.
But that's just not this film. This is a movie about a gardener, a man who is content to quietly tend to his garden until his pleasant little life is disrupted, causing him to become a crusader for the downtrodden. That's all well and good (if a bit expected). But Meirelles clearly has larger aspirations, and these overblown ambitions for his pleasant little spy film get him into trouble.
I feel like, as a spy film, it basically does its job. I liked it more than, say, "The Recruit" or "Sum of All Fears" or "Spy Game." It sporadically looks kind of nice (I liked the glossy African photography), Ralph Fiennes does a nice job, whatever.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think it could stand to feel a bit more like a lecture. Some actual relevant information about the pharmaceutical industry and how it works with governments might have been nice. As is, the movie's exceedingly generic, with drug companies standing in for EVIL CORPORATIONS in general.