Cast: Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor, Tom Holland
Director: Juan Antonio Bayona
Runtime: 113 min.
Verdict: As a document of real events, it is passable. As a case
of a left boob, it has my attention.
Genre: Drama, Action (?), Thriller (?)
There’s a
thin line between representing historical events and depicting historical
events, and while the former can be a catalyst for ideas and discussions, the
cut-and-dried this-is-what-it-was-like nature of the latter is more liable to
cause serious ethical issues. Especially when the filmmaker happens to be so
sure of his genre-credentials and his showmanship so as to go ahead and try and
impress us, which then kind of derails the entire enterprise. Mr. Bayona, whose
The Orphanage is a fine horror film
with the sort of haunted ending I tend to seek, throws close-ups on the people
here (real and humanistic), and master establishing shots (spectacle) for the
disaster to cause the exact kind of awkward combo that makes the “depiction” of
history the slippery ground it is, and The
Impossible some kind of a sequel to Zero
Dark Thirty.
So yeah, The Impossible
is mediocrity of the mildly offensive kind. Not that I’m offended, but I’m curious
why Mr. Bayona so consciously makes an attempt to chart the tsunami of Dec 26th
2004 via the eyes of Caucasians. The locals are there but only to fill the
fringes. Not that I would want to pretend to be sensitive either way, but just
the nature of the intention would be some kind of interesting. Especially when disaster-meter
Mr. Emmerich has updated his oeuvre to include a global annihilation in 2012.
What has grabbed my
attention though is the strong undercurrent of the Oedipal that runs throughout
the picture, and were it for me, it would have been called The Curious Case of the Left Boob. It is better to put forth
bullet-pointed evidence lest somebody find me - the messenger - a little perversely
inclined. Just like this innocent gentleman here.
·
The film opens to Maria Bennett
(Ms. Watts) sitting not close to her husband Henry (Mr. McGregor) so as to
display a traditional picture of a family, but a seat apart. Their conversations
are not archetypal lovey-dovey couple but archetypal caught-in-the-rigors of
life a-little-distant husband-wife.
·
She gets up and sits next to
her eldest son Tom (Mr. Holland), and their interactions are considerably more
personal. The camera felt a little tighter on the close-up too. The son happens
to be a teenager.
·
While Maria is dressing up for
their evening on the island, we catch the briefest glimpse of her left boob. God
knows why. Or maybe Freud knows.
·
Before the big flood the
husband and wife have another of their disconnected conversations. Especially
about her career.
·
After the big flood the mother
and son are left together. A lot of melodrama causes their union amidst the
flowing waters, and while they walking ashore, we once again catch a glimpse of
her left boob. Through the son’s vantage point. Awkward. He turns his eyes away
while she ties her cloth all the time looking at him. Connection there I tell
you.
·
They meet a little kid who
their rescue. The mother is one wanting to rescue the kid, while the son is
more intent on finding safer grounds. More on this thread later.
·
They climb onto a tree, and as
she sleeps, the son steals a little glance and the camera pans on to her…..guess…..covered
left boob.
·
The cutaway from the son searching for his mother in the
hospital is juxtaposed with the father, who we see for the first time since the
big flood. It is a proper case of replacement via editing.
·
The father leaves his two sons
in the hands of a friend so that he could try and find his eldest son Henry and
wife. It is a gamble. And who discovers those two little kids? Henry.
·
They all finally find each
other in the end, and the mother is to be operated upon. While she is taken
away for surgery, the father sits against the wall with the other two kids
while the son is seated against the bed his mother was lying on. I expected
them to all be together, all the kids under the umbrella of the father,
especially after having shared such an ultra-melodramatic reunion. The power
equation is not so neat and tidy, and it gets even foggier when the son gets up
and lies down on that very bed in that very place his mother was there not so
long before. Mr. Bayona causes overhead perpendicular shots that kind of unite
both the mother on the surgical bed and the son on her mother’s bed. It is he
who imagines/remembers/fantasizes/dreams about his mother in the big tsunami and
the big wave hitting her.
·
We’re in the end, on the flight
to Singapore, and she’s on a bed. Before the flight attendants ask everyone to
be seated, the husband and wife hug and kiss in a rather impersonal far-medium
shot, and as he goes back to his seat on the left aisle, he nods at his son,
sitting on the right aisle to share whatever he has to with his mother.
·
The son walks up, and this is
when we get a proper warm composition of the mother. She smiles upon looking at
him. The warm closure we usually get the end of such disaster movies between
loved ones that reinforce traditional familial dynamics (like for instance the
glance shared between Laura Dern and Sam Neill at the end of Jurassic Park on the helicopter) is
shared between the mother and the son. He talks about the kid they saved (who, it can be construed,
was given a new life by them and is thus their kid) and she starts crying. That
little life-form was theirs.
I’ve no idea what all of this amounts to. I might ask for the
truth and Mr. Bayona might very well claim I can’t handle the truth. Or vice
versa. The thing is, when I first saw the left boob I thought it was Henry
Bennett’s possession. I am not sure of that anymore.


1 comment:
Interesting observation. Considering what you suspect is true, why would any maker risk diluting the actual accounts of the living people?
Post a Comment