Uncertainty. This is a prevalent theme in the film. The cinematography intentionally leaves things out of focus, and yet, only to the point where you make note of them. Rain, fog, snow, smeared water on the windshield, blood in your eyes. It’s all there to make you question things, to make you doubt. To question your faith in what you believe is true or not. That is the real theme of the film, and it works to brilliant effect.
This really comes into play in the case of Detective Loki, who is trying to piece the whole thing together. The film is constructed in such a way that it intentionally eludes the viewer’s perceptions, leading them along with the protagonists on an exhausting search for the two missing little girls.
The two male leads, Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal, play their parts with riveting efficiency. Jackman is sympathetic, yet becomes more imposing and terrifying as the film procedes. He is a commanding presence, and dominates his scenes. Some might be familiar with the term, “chewing on scenery.” Jackman takes this idea to “smashing” new heights. He does a great job with emotional range, from subtle to violent, but the character seems to lack a certain depth that made him less interesting than I expected. I suppose that may be an intentional subversion on the part of the director, which is surprising, if nothing else.
Gyllenhaal is the most interesting case of the bunch though, in my opinion, because although he is playing a familiar role to what we have seen him in previously, the subtlety with which he communicates Loki’s development over the course of the film is downright impressive. There is a subtle tick that he gives his character, and although it was glaringly obvious to start with, it grew to become a defining characteristic that added a great deal of depth. It’s amazing what these little flourishes can do over time. Detective Loki is a man who has always been so certain of the truth, and solved every case he has worked, until now. To see him out of his depth and coming to terms with his doubt and uncertainty regarding the case of the missing girls is fascinating to watch.
The supporting roles do their job admirably, but, in the essence of being a supporting role, they aren’t given that much time to shine. It would always be good to see more of Terrence Howard, Viola Davis, and Mario Bello, but once the plot starts moving, it doesn’t stop, and it can be easy to forget about what’s going on at home while the men are out in search of their daughters.
A good alternate title for this film would have been, “War Against God,” though to explain why would give too much away. I tend to despise one-word titles, and “Prisoners” is ridiculously generic and forgettable. However, it is also mysterious. I entered the theater wondering, “Why is it called that?” It gives no idea of what to expect, given the context of the film. Afterwards, I still have little notion of what the title is supposed to mean. Yes, there are people imprisoned in the movie, but it is not the theme or focus. Perhaps, to tie it in to the theme of doubt and uncertainty, the main characters are “prisoners” of this.
Prisoners is also a quiet film. An already minimal score is used sparingly, but to great effect. It is eerie and lends a mysterious and sinister ambiance to the proceedings that can’t help but make the viewer a little uneasy.
As for the setting, it startled me to see that shooting on location in a real suburban neighborhood would lend so much realism to the story. Everything is believable, and I feel that the film’s willingness to embrace the mundane elements of the situation make it all the more unsettling. It’s all a little too real at points. The acting is subdued, and when the emotions come out, it is brief, violent, and feels genuine and affecting.
The only reservations I have about this film that hold it back from a perfect score are the convoluted elements that are never expanded on. Of course, these mysterious elements are not central to the story being told. They are peripheral to the kidnapping and search, but it would have been nice to get some closure on what it all means. That, and the casting of the creepy characters played by Paul Dano and David Dastmalchian is a little too on the nose. They immediately come across as shady characters not to be trusted, and they never subvert that notion at any point. Just because they look creepy in real life doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. They seem a bit typecast in this sense.
It is difficult to go much further in depth with this review without going into spoiler territory, so I intend on revisiting the film later on when more people have seen it and discussion has simmered down a bit. But for now, just know that the film is absolutely worth seeing.
Dino-Score: 4/5
No comments:
Post a Comment