21 Grams (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, 2003)
Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez
Inarritu’s second film 21 Grams marks
his debut American feature. Similar to his explosive, and superior, debut Amores Perros, it tells a
simple story about fate that examines the events surrounding a tragic automobile
accident. With a trio of well-respected actors (Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and
Benicio Del Toro) in the lead roles, the movie seems poised to reap critical
praise and plaudits when it opens this November. Though it's got a top-notch
cast, this melodrama utilizes a time structure that works against our ability to
best understand the characters emotionally. Without spoiling anything, I'll note
that by utilizing the plot structure that it does, it's attempting to make big
statements about faith, coincidence and justice, but those attempts fall flat,
leaving us with a melodrama that dangerously encourages intellectual questioning
that it can't withstand. Since Inarritu doesn’t show these events
chronologically, our sympathies aren't often aligned with those of the
characters, leaving us in a privileged (or, at times, non-privileged) space
where the character in question's dilemma is something somewhat foreign to us
and the constraints of this mode of in-your-face storytelling are laid bare.
Since the director’s omniscient point
of view, and not the point of view of any character, dominates the movie, it’s
tough to grasp the immediacy of the performances, which don’t pack as much
impact as they otherwise might. When one character opts not to press charges
against Del Toro character, we don’t balk much because we’re aware of his
personal struggles with his crime. The character making that choice doesn’t
have this same information, however, so even though the audience can understand
the decision somewhat, the audience views it from a different place emotionally.
Worse yet, since we’re aware of the director’s overall scheme for this plot,
the presence of God’s (or the director’s) grand scheme is so apparent that
it undermines the movie’s time spent grappling with faith. Because we know
it’s all going to come together (which is something of a lie itself, since
life rarely presents justice in accidents like these), the story told in the
film doesn’t test our faith. It only confirms it. As 21
Grams moves into its second hour, and the straightforward narratives becomes
less obliquely presented, it provides more frequent opportunities for the
audience to understand precisely what a character is going through at a given
moment. As it begins to slow down, and its direction becomes apparent, one
can’t help but wonder why Inarritu felt it necessary to present this story as
a puzzle to begin with. By taking away the element of surprise, and sacrificing
our closeness to the characters’ shifting emotional states, the movie is
trying to present itself as something more than the melodrama that it is, but it
doesn’t offer much to chew on that the average melodrama doesn’t. “Numbers
are a door to understanding a mystery bigger than us,” says Penn’s
mathematician, but the only mystery here involving numbers is the significance
of the title, which isn’t revealed until the closing monologue.
Del Toro’s plot thread, told with the
fewest temporal shakeups of the three, comes across the strongest, even though
it’s Watts that gives the best performance (though her best acting moment is
more a result of Clea DuVall’s expression than her own). Cumulatively, though,
the movie fails to yield the insight that something this dour and downbeat
probably should. Since the chronology settles down as the film precedes, it
suggests that the organization of scenes is at least partially employed due to a
lack of faith in the audience’s ability to accept a storyline that doesn’t
make its disparate threads readily apparent. Aside from structuring his film
indirectly, Inarritu does an adequate job of directing. The bleached out look
and handheld camerawork here recall Soderbergh’s Traffic,
especially with the presence of Del Toro and editor Stephen Mirrione. Despite
the consistently raw emotional tone, it’s nowhere near as intense a viewing
experience as Amores Perros. Spare
organ music plays throughout before mounting steadily and unnecessarily during
the denouement (at least it’s not opera). Annoying smaller touches abound. For
example, there’s a book lying behind Penn when he faces Watts titled
“Impostors” and a tendency to turn children into metaphors for guilt or
happiness. Easy metaphors are no surprise, though, when the worldview is as
facile as this. “Some things have to happen for two people to meet,”
Penn’s character quips, but most of those things here seem to involve the
screenwriter’s willingness to involve himself in contrivance in an attempt to
convince the audience of the presence of order in the world.
47
09-15-03
Jeremy Heilman