3.5 stars. Rated R, for strong bloody violence, nudity, profanity, dramatic intensity and sexual content
By Derrick Bang
Prison dramas, a cinematic staple since 1932’s I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, have long attracted big-name stars: Alec Guinness and William Holden (The Bridge Over the River Kwai,), Paul Newman (Cool Hand Luke), Daniel Day-Lewis (In the Name of the Father) and Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman (Papillon).
 |
| Although initially worried that he might be making a deal with a different sort of devil, Louis Dega (Rami Malek, left) agrees to accept protection from Henri "Papillon" Charrière (Charlie Hunnam), in exchange for using some of his artfully concealed cash to help finance a potential escape attempt. |
More recent examples have increasingly depicted a level of brutality that never would have been possible during Hollywood’s golden age — 2014 Unbroken comes to mind — but, at their core, the best examples have endured because of their memorable character dynamics. That’s certainly true of the McQueen/Hoffman pairing in 1973’s Papillon, which remains a classic.
Mounting a remake of that film requires considerable chutzpah, since it’s akin to taking a fresh look at, say, Citizen Kane or Casablanca.
That said, director Michael Noer’s new handling of Papillon is a worthy effort, thanks mostly to the riveting performances from — and crackling chemistry between — stars Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek. While likely to remain in its 1973 predecessor’s shadow, Noer’s film deserves a chance to acquaint newcomers with this thoroughly gripping saga.
Aaron Guzilowski’s screenplay is adapted from the two memoirs — Papillon and Banco— written by Henri Charrière, the man who supposedly lived these events. (His nickname, “Papillon,” referred to the butterfly tattoo on his chest.) That disclaimer is more necessary today than it was in 1973, because ongoing research suggests that the events in Charrière’s books were endured by multiple individuals, and not just him alone … and that he also may not be the most reliable of narrators.
But the key details are undeniable: Charrière/Papillon was a Parisian safecracker and thief who ran afoul of an underworld gangster, and in return was framed for murder, and sentenced in 1931 to “life” in French Guiana’s notoriously harsh St-Laurent-du-Maroni prison camp: an isolated setting from which escape was “impossible.”
Since Charrière did not complete the sentence that was extended repeatedly due to his “bad behavior,” and given the existence of his two books — published in 1970 and ’73, respectively — we know immediately that “impossible” was an overstatement. Even so, the suspense derives from how things went down. The possibility that Charrière may have exaggerated details scarcely matters; Noer, Guzikowski and their two stars deliver a gripping, wincingly grim drama.
We meet Papillon (Hunnam) in Paris, enjoying a hedonistic life of larceny with his lover, Nenette (Eve Hewson). Alas, he makes the arrogant mistake of concealing some ill-gotten gains from gangster boss Castili (Christopher Fairbank), who responds with something far worse than a quick knife across the throat; Papillon is arrested and convicted for killing a pimp also in Castili’s employ.
During the long voyage on the prison transport ship, the quick-witted Papillon realizes that one of his fellow convicts — Louis Dega (Malek), a meek currency forger also sentenced to life for producing counterfeit bonds — is carrying a large, concealed stash of money. The two men make a pact: Papillon will protect Dega from the nastier thugs who’d kill him as soon as blink; in return, Dega agrees to “finance,” via bribes, Papillon’s eventual escape plan.
Papillon soon realizes he may have gotten the worst end of the bargain: not merely because Dega is such a frequent target, but also because the man is so damn clueless and helpless. He constantly puts himself in harm’s way through sheer naiveté: not necessarily because he expects to be treated like an aristocrat, but mostly because he just doesn’t know any better … and doesn’t learn quickly.
As a result, their “bond” is uneasy at best, dangerously brittle at worst. Papillon has nothing but contempt for his charge; Dega, in turn, retreats into the role of a child needing the guidance of a parent he doesn’t trust.
This character dynamic is the film’s strongest asset. Hunnam, a successful television actor (Sons of Anarchy, among others) still seeking a breakout big-screen role, puts heart, soul and a lot of anguish into his performance here. Much can be read from his expressions: from impatient resignation, each time Dega needs rescuing; to grim, street-level determination when scuffling with larger opponents.
Hunnam exudes ferocity at such moments: He has presence. He looks quite capable of killing somebody.
At other times, he exhibits a delicious degree of guile. One of his best — and subtlest — moments comes when the camp warden (Yorick van Wageningen) attempts to bribe him with more food, in exchange for ratting out a fellow prisoner. Hunnam’s slow, wordless response — Papillon near starvation while in solitary confinement — is sublime.
Hunnam also quite convincingly carries silent, lengthy scenes depicting Papillon’s efforts to remain sane, while in solitary.
Malek, on a rapid rise thanks to his breakout starring role in TV’s Mr. Robot, is equally captivating as Dega. Rarely has a pair of glasses been used so effectively as a character statement: Malek fidgets, fumbles and flusters, his faltering sentences emerging slowly, as if from a child newly learning how to speak. Alternatively, at times he musters an almost comical dignity, pulling himself upright and addressing (for example) a slovenly prison trustee as if they’re both standing in the court of Versailles.
Hunnam and Malek are fascinating together, because Papillon and Dega are such polar opposites: stuck in an alliance they’d never, ever make under calmer circumstances, and stumbling their way into making it work.
Roland Møller is intriguing as the beefy Celier, a fellow inmate who seems sympathetic to the unlikely Papillon/Dega bond, and might even be a trustworthy confidante … but we’re not sure; he may be too opportunistic. Van Wageningen is appropriately imperious as the warden: strict and unyielding, but not a monster per se. He leaves that to bestial underlings and suggestible prisoners, and there’s no shortage of either.
Which brings up Noer’s most unfortunate artistic decision: his film’s level of depravity, explicit squalor and vicious behavior. I question the need for us viewers to endure a lingering view of a knifed man’s entrails, following an attack; or a graphic depiction of the means by which Dega retrieves his artfully concealed rolls of cash; or the gory results after a prisoner is guillotined. That’s horror-flick excess, and we don’t need it here; it’s distracting, and pulls focus from the ongoing narrative.
Production designer Tom Meyer delivers a persuasive recreation of the horrific “Camp de la Transportation,” as the prison is known; cinematographer Hagen Bogdanski employs a slightly grainy film stock that amplifies the filth and atmosphere of despair.
Longtime film fans will chuckle when Hunnam paraphrases a line from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, under similarly dire circumstances.
The engaging dynamic between Hunnam and Malek notwithstanding, this new version of Papillon isn’t likely to reward — or encourage — repeat viewing; that sets it apart from the McQueen/Hoffman original, which is equally compelling again and again.
Which, obviously, is why it’s so risky to remake a classic: What’s the point, if you can’t surpass — or at least equal — the original?
No comments:
Post a Comment