Skip to main content

A Moving Target


It’s been a long time since I’ve gotten to talk about a Canadian movie. It’s also been a long time since I’ve been able to review a new movie I saw in cinemas, as with theatres reopening across the country and practicing safe distancing, I was able to return for it and a few other older movies that are being played in place of the usual new releases out of the U.S. If you’re in a region with relatively few COVID cases, take the proper precautions, and are healthy, I’d urge you to go to the cinemas now when they need audiences most. Plenty of your favourites are playing at reduced rates.
Also, there are occasional outliers of recently released films in select cinemas, including Target Number One, a true story crime film from Quebecois director Daniel Roby. It’s a dramatization of a scandal in 1989 when a young drug addict was set up by the CSIS to take the fall for an incompetent international drug bust, winding up unjustly imprisoned in Thailand; and of the investigative journalist who fought to get him out. It’s an interesting enough story, though Target Number One consciously glosses over some of its most compelling facets in its desire to be a historical-political thriller in the vein of Oliver Stone.
But it’s certainly a distinctly Canadian variant on such stories, as much as it might sometimes strive for an American attitude. This is a movie that after all emphasizes in its postscript that the action scenes were fabricated for dramatic effect, something an American equivalent would never feel the need to acknowledge. And the conspiracy is never directly linked to particular figures or political organizations, merely the spectre of “the government” (it would have been Mulroneys’ at the time) -as though unwilling to risk offence. Even the lead characters’ name is changed from Alain Olivier to Daniel Leger for whatever reason, and all but the reporter Victor Malarek appear to be composite characters rather than depictions of real individuals.
These restraints are a little odd and leave the movies’ honesty in question, particularly for those of us unaware of the real story of this film. Yet it certainly has no love for the CSIS and their actions, recruiting Leger while undercover as drug kingpins in the belief he’s more important than the mere petty criminal he is. The organization is primarily represented through Stephen McHattie, an unpredictable and intimidating presence as always, as careless, unethical, and unprofessional, at one point recruiting McHattie’s son into the operation straight out of police academy -he definitely embodies every toxic trait of law enforcement the filmmakers couldn’t have known would be so timely now.
As he’s being manipulated by both these forces and an unpleasant Jim Gaffigan as his boss and their informant, Daniel Leger never feels like anything more than a dumb kid out of his element. He’s played by Antoine Olivier Pilon of Xavier Dolan’s Mommy, and his performance is definitely a highlight of the film, genuine in a way not a lot of the others are. He wanders through the movie confused and perturbed, as he is constantly scapegoated, and Pilon maintains the characters’ consistency through these changing circumstances even as the films’ structure threatens to jeopardize its’ effect.
Target Number One is weirdly fragmented as a movie, splitting its’ time evenly between Legers’ story and that of Malarek, played by the films’ biggest get, Josh Hartnett. Malarek’s investigation, his tenuous relationship with the Globe & Mail, and his efforts to expose Legers’ story take place at a different time than Legers’ itself -the two merge when Malarek first meets Leger in Taiwan before we have any indication he’s going there. From that point it cuts routinely between Malarek, Leger in prison, and the events that led to his imprisonment. And while this choice isn’t confusing necessarily, it is rather haphazard, abandoning the former two for an about twenty minute sequence of the latter at one point -as though that storyline needed to do catch-up. The way it is written, the film is front-loaded a lot with Malarek to the point his story doesn’t have much momentum anymore by the last act. These sequences are still good, Hartnett is actually one of the movies’ biggest strengths, and I get a kick out of seeing the American actor making so many Canadian references; but it and the other story points the movie is trying to accomplish don’t gel together very organically based on the approach taken to the narrative.
And then there’s the fact that the movie ends long before the story does -or rather the story is re-framed to be Malarek’s rather than Legers’, more about publishing Legers’ story and bringing attention to it than getting him out of jail. Olivier spent eight years imprisoned in Taiwan, and if the film is in any way true to history, he seemed to have found an enlightenment there, turning Buddhist, and leaving finally in 1997 a changed man who bears no ill will to the bastards who put him through that. This is revealed only at the end of Target Number One, as Malarek working for CTV, interviews Leger as he’s finally released. There’s an incredibly interesting story alluded to there that the movie completely overlooks, suggesting that the film never was all that interested in Leger and what he went through, as much as Malarek’s big scoop. Which is fine, but then why divest so much time on Leger, whose story consequently feels very incomplete.
Even with all these shortcomings though, Roby is a competent enough filmmaker and Target Number One a competent, solidly above average film. Jumbled though it may be, the story is still interesting, the tension when needed is pretty strong, that one action sequence is quite well done, and Hartnett, Pilon, and McHattie are usually on hand to carry any given scene. Ordinarily I wouldn’t recommend necessarily rushing out to see it, but cinemas need the boost, and Canadian movies as always especially do. So I say go for it, it’s a worthwhile distraction in any case.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
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

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

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more