'Child 44' is an old-school thriller that is as bleak as a night in a Gulag with a good helping of cold war sauce on top. It has a top-drawer cast and an interesting premise that turns genre conventions on their head. It utilises unusual locations, has a distinctive look and has plenty of discussion points. I thought it was very good indeed. It has, of course, pretty much died at the box office and garnered only lukewarm reviews from most critics. I urge you to see it if you can cope with drama that isn't a reboot, remake or sequel. I urge you to see it if you care about adult cinema that isn't a Brad Pratt, Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie vehicle. I urge you to see it if your tastes run to something more than superheroes, kids films and broad comedy.
During Stalin's rule of the Soviet Union in the early 1950s, security agent Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy) uncovers evidence of a child's murder in Moscow. This is problematic because under this regime "there is no murder in paradise"; murder is a capitalist disease. Demidov knows but cannot act and when his superiors decide to test his obedience by making him denounce his wife Raisa (Noomi Rapace) events escalate as he fights to survive in this ruthless world of jealousy, ideology, infighting, paranoia and secrecy. The stakes become ever higher as more child murders come to light.
This is so much more than a "rogue cop breaks every rule in the book in order to catch a serial killer" story given period dress and an historical setting. This turns the conventions of standard investigation/mystery/race-against-time thrillers on their head because of the milieu in which it is set. Every action has dire and possibly fatal consequences. This is a world in which accusations, questions and probing for information may cost you your life, or the life of your loved ones. Just associating with the wrong people and saying the wrong thing could put your life at risk. The film really conveys that dread of daily life in a police state and the weight that hangs on every action. The knock at the door could come at any time. Even for those normally doing the knocking.
Let's look at that cast: Tom Hardy, Noomi Rapace, Vincent Cassel, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Paddy Considine, Charles Dance. I mean, that's a casting agent's wet dream of a list right there. All of them are capable of performances of extremes, all of them are top talents when they want to be. There's been some critical sneering at the Russian accents but that's not a reason to turn against the film. Yes, it's a bit like those bloody Meerkat adverts at times but it's no more silly than the countless 'German Officer' accents we're used to from classic war films. It's not distracting and here's nothing here as cringe-worthy as Sean Connery or Michael Caine doing the accent thing. Vincent Cassel still has a French tang to his lines but I kind of like that. Even when Tom Hardy goes full throttle it still never gets anywhere near the embarrassment levels of his Bane voice. He's really good in this with just the right mix of meathead muscle and emotional sensitivity to be convincing. Joel Kinnaman, who ruined 'Robocop', is a revelation in this. If anything, the only (very surprising) weak spot is Paddy Considine, who doesn't seem to be on top form here - but I suspect that a LOT of his role ended up on the cutting room floor and I would hope that it was a more interesting performance overall than what we get to see here.
I've seen talk of it being too confusing, too boring, too long. I didn't find any of those things to be true. It's complex, but it's not 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' - it is easy to follow. The denouement is a little bit rushed and some things could have perhaps done with more explanation but that's a case for making the film a bit longer, not shorter. I could easily have sat through another twenty minutes (and regular readers will know that I generally find anything over 90 mins a stretch) and would, if anything, possibly have removed the actual final scene, which seemed a trifle unnecessary and probably existed only to keep the main actors happy by providing a neat resolution for their character arcs.
I didn't find it boring at all. I thought it was an interesting world to explore, had interesting characters and there was pace to the story. Would a car chase or a firefight in a factory have improved things? Of course not. The violence when it occurs is brutal and realistic and I jumped in my seat quite a few times
This is one film where I felt it I understood everyone's motivations in any given scene and more importantly always understood why we were at a particular location and how we got there in terms of plotting.....and I'll freely admit that I'm usually the first to get lost in films like this.
The strangest thing about 'Child 44' is that you get the feeling that the project would be lauded more if it had been one of those box set HBO mini series things that they have now. Perhaps it would have suited that tv series format better but I think in that case they would have had to shoehorn in some cliffhangers and raise the action, gore and sex levels, thus losing something in the process. But that's the strange world that we seem to be in now - where television has become the adult drama that films used to be and films have become juvenile cartoons. Something like 'Child 44' just doesn't seem to fit anywhere any more, even as a thriller. I guess people just prefer to see glossy "Did-she-or-didn't-she?", "Did- he-or-didn't he?" murder mysteries over and over again.
'Child 44' then, a very good film, worthy of your time if you want to catch it before it disappears. A film so good and a story so prescient that Putin hates it and the 'Ministry of Culture' has banned it. A film about child abuse and murder covered up by corrupt government officials who would prefer to think that such things don't exist.
Thank God that couldn't happen here!
No comments:
Post a Comment