Review of Captain Phillips (2013) by Borderlinefilms - — 05 Feb 2015

Have Camera, Will Shake.

Dear Mr. Greengrass, your signature style using a nervous camera and jarring edits from start to finish has become all too tired and cliché. Although you seem to have cornered the market on shooting in choppy environments (hijacked planes and ships), your MO is wonky and outdated. It once provided us with the illusion of edgy unpredictability but no longer substitutes for good story-telling and suspenseful drama. It was fun for a while but substance outlives style. Next time out, unpack the tripod, see if you can't restrain those spasms.

The docudrama appearance of the film is at odds with it's Hollywood makeover and spoiled by casting a movie star in the title role. We can actually believe those were real Somali pirates stalking the ship, barefoot in a motorboat with a machine gun, so what's Tom Hanks doing out there?

Which captain is more likely to be nominated for an Oscar and which one is more deserving, Tom Hanks, the extremely likable hard-luck chap, or Barkhad Abdi, the very convincing "skinny" Somalian in his first acting role? "Relax, everything's going to be okay, Mr. Phillips.".

The story was initially framed from two opposing points of view. But for all the time we spend with the Captain and the pirates, we know very little about them. He's married. They are desperate. End of profile. This is why the endings of such undeveloped stories are abrupt and unsatisfying. The scrappy character development is ultimately why the movie needs illustrious old Tom Hanks and the indelible memory of his previous fictional characters. And, without question, a shaky camera.

Much of the dialogue was reduced to short outbursts of threats and fits of rage. The movie could have been released on Twitter. It rang rather empty when Hanks roared out they were not fishermen, since neither he or the audience knew much about them. Given his strategic thinking, you'd figure Phillips would have tried to sympathize with the attackers, get to know them, if only to weaken their resolve and possibly get them to turn against each other. Besides, isn't this what displaced main characters are meant to do? Be our eyes and ears in a narrative of conflict and discovery?

The Somalian Pirates fail to impress us as anything but deadly pests. Their crude onrush leaves me wondering why the most self-important nation on earth, so insanely obsessed and possessive about firearms, doesn't at least provide the old Cap with a pocket pistol for self-defence? Seriously, the only weapons provided for these gigantic container ships, so vital to a global economy, are water hoses?

Some of the more interesting facts and details seemed to either be swept aside or glossed over. The pirates, for all their maniacal posturing, did not kill anyone. Attacking them was like swatting a mosquito with a wrecking ball. The absurdity is evident but never appeared foolish as the filmmakers brazenly flaunted conventional American propaganda. Disproportionately heroic American might and justice was never questioned.(The cost of hiring a warship perhaps?).

The desperation of the pirates mission was touched upon: return with the ship and/or the captain or face certain death. But the resolve of the American naval SEAL to rescue a single individual using its highly skilled and lopsided military was never in doubt. Thus, staking its claim on the foolhardy impression that every individual American life is sacred (if your white, well-to-do and married) but never once hinted that it was likely for the optics alone. This is typically implied by showing TV news coverage of the hostage crisis back home, often from the protagonist's family room.

We were introduced to his wife in the first scene but never see her again. Actually, I don't mind this omission. The movie succeeds rather well keeping us in the moment with a tense, rigid, alert objective in lieu of a broader and richer perspective. I got the feeling something important was happening--but little else.