Skip to main content

A Whale of a Tale


                Ron Howard’s films are generally hit or miss. For every Apollo 13 there’s a How the Grinch Stole Christmas. But what I’ve always admired about his projects is how he always tries to do something new, he ever gets stuck in a particular type of film or style. Keeping to that, In the Heart of the Sea is unlike any other film he’s made.
                The film tells the true story of the loss of the whaling vessel Essex in 1820. Told in flashback by Thomas Nickerson (Brendan Gleeson) to Herman Melville (Ben Whishaw) researching for his novel Moby-Dick, we’re introduced to Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) an experienced whaler who’s risen to the officer class despite a poor background based on his skill alone. He’s first mate to Captain George Pollard (Benjamin Walker) a sterner, more removed man with a family name. Nickerson himself (Tom Holland) is the ship’s fourteen year old cabin boy. Months after setting out from Nantucket, they encounter a massive whale who destroys the ship and forces the crew to survive on the open sea.
                This film looks great. Yeah at times the whales definitely look CGI, but the cinematography really pulls you into this world. You feel the scope and weight of the situation these sailors are in. There are a couple tracking shots like when the boats are going after a pod of whales that are amazing to look at. However it’s in the plot that the film somewhat falters. We know the story and what’s going to happen, which dispels a lot of the tension. By the time we get into the survival portion of the story it begins to get more unpredictable and even uncomfortable, but in doing this it loses momentum and isn’t as exciting. There’s also an overreliance, particularly in the beginning and end, on the reputation of Moby-Dick, which the marketing and the film itself reminds us time and again, was inspired by this story. It’s kind of counterintuitive in telling the story that we’re constantly reminded of a much more famous and better one. This story doesn’t have the fascinating themes, attention to detail, or memorable characters that the one it inspires does. There’s no Captain Ahab hell-bent on revenge, no exploration of obsession or paranoia. In short, In the Heart of the Sea is no Moby-Dick, Chris Hemsworth is no Gregory Peck.
                That doesn’t mean he does poorly. Hemsworth and most of the cast perform very well. Especially Brendan Gleeson, who’s one of the most underrated actors working today. His scenes with Whishaw, telling this painful story and confessing long-held secrets are actually some of the best in the film. (Though how he remembers a number of scenes where he’s absent makes for a noticeable plot hole.) We also get good performances from Cillian Murphy, Michelle Fairley, Charlotte Riley, and Donald Sumpter. But none of the characters really have a lot of character to them. Chase and Pollard’s backstories are curious but undeveloped. They’re suffering, trying to survive, but there was nothing much about them to be invested in to begin with.
As we edge closer to Awards season, In the Heart of the Sea comes just short of being a significant contender. It’s a decent film but doesn’t have enough consistent and legitimate tension or character to make it a great film. But as I said, it looks great. If you do want to see it, see it in theatres as the big screen is really the best environment to feel the scale of the action. It’s worth a watch, but you’d be better off seeing this kind of story in Life of Pi or Moby-Dick itself.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more