On paper, Prisoners seems like its destined to be forgotten as yet another unremarkable thriller. The film concerns the abduction of two young girls and focuses its attention on two men searching for them; Hugh Jackman as Keller Dover – zealous carpenter and father of one of the girls – and Jake Gyllenhaal as Detective Loki, the lead investigator on the case. Keller, driven to the edge of reason by his daughter’s disappearance, begins to take matters into his own hands while Loki must wrestle with Keller’s increasingly unhinged behaviour and a baffling accumulation of evidence. Prisoners seems like the archetypal example of a revenge flick here, a Man on Fire-esque eruption of violence justified by the desperation of a loving father; yet another film opining that the best response to terrible acts is to resort to terror.
Prisoners isn’t that film. Jackman’s character does resort to violence, and torture, and the kind of behaviour that Hollywood has taught us is a fitting response in these situations. Keller’s wrath is directed towards Alex Jones (Paul Dano), a vacant imbecile whose dilapidated, ominous RV loomed, unexplained, near the Dover house shortly before the girls’ disappearance. After Jones is released from police custody, with no evidence to tie him to any wrongdoing, Keller takes matters into his own hands. But writer Aaron Guzikowski refuses to celebrate or tolerate his actions. Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard), Keller’s neighbour whose daughter was also taken, acts as conscience, asking questions revenge films avoid too often. What if Jones is innocent? What if Keller’s resolve is misinformed? And, more importantly, even if Keller is right, can his actions truly be justified?
This is not to suggest that the film does not sympathise with Keller’s plight. How could it not? More than any film I’ve seen, Prisoners captures the overwhelming bleakness that consumes anyone who’s lost a child; much of the credit here lies with Canadian director Denis Villeneuve (in his first English language film; his last film, Incendies, was nominated for an Oscar) and living legend Roger Deakins as Director of Photography. The film is impeccably photographed; it’s largely classically framed (aside from occasionally grandiose shots that emphasise the scale of the police search) but with precision and an astounding use of lighting. It’s grimly shot, but notice how greyness only fills the film after the two girls disappear; Thanksgiving sunlight turns to the dull ache before a storm, a dark storm that never seems to pass. The light bleeds out of the film just as the life bleeds out of the families’ lives.
The dark palette and atmosphere of sickly dread throughout reminded me strongly of a more restrained David Fincher; not a comparison I make lightly. The subject matter resonates with a handful of Fincher films as well; like Zodiac, it’s a police procedural that stretches beyond two hours, including a tense scene with Jake Gyllenhaal in a dark basement. It shares attributes with both Se7en and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, though they’re difficult to discuss without verging on spoiler territory. As someone disinterested in guessing twists, I did pick the direction Prisoners was headed in its last act; this is actually testament to the tightness of the film’s construction. Despite its 150-plus minutes, there’s no shot, action, or line of dialogue wasted: paying attention to apparently extraneous details in the first act reveals the film’s agenda.
As you might have gathered, I was very much impressed by Prisoners. It’s not a perfect film, however. There’s a disparity in tone between the first and last act; the gritty realism of the former at odds with the heightened tone of the conclusion. Fincher is a master of calibrating audience expectations to suit the material, whereas Villeneuve doesn’t quite demonstrate the same skills. Gyllenhaal and Jackman are both impressive in roles that demand simplicity and raw emotion, but the female cast is largely sidelined (the film only passes the Bechdel test thanks to a brief conversation between the two daughters in an early scene). Talented actresses like Maria Bello and Viola Davis are given comparatively little to do, though an unrecognisable Melissa Leo impresses in a small role. The all-encompassing bleakness is arguably a weakness as well; it can be a challenging film to watch, particularly during the middle stretch.
That grim environment ensures that the audience is fully engaged however. Prisoners never feels like the conventional thriller it so easily could have been, and as the film’s final, tense moments unfold, there’s no sense that a happy ending is imminent. But what demonstrates the effectiveness of the film is that – if you’re anything like me – you desperately crave that happy ending. I was literally biting my nails, willing the filmmakers to provide a ray of sunlight to illuminate the gloom.
18 thoughts on “Prisoners (2013)”
I saw this one last week, and thought it was pretty good. There are some aspects I feel that were a bit confusing, or unexplained, such as Detective Liko’s odd mannerisms, etc. but I think the writer/director left this unexplained deliberately. I guess to add a bit of mystery.
I have not seen “Zodiac”. Is it good? Is it similar as this? Which one is the better film?
I thought Loki was a good character, distinguished by an excellent performance from Gyllenhaal. We didn’t find out much about him outside the context of the case, but I think his tics were supposed to demonstrate how the case had worn him down. I liked that he wasn’t a super-detective; he used bland police clichés, he missed things, etc. I thought all the plot elements were explained well but agree that plenty of gaps were left in terms of character; I didn’t really mind this, as I don’t feel a story about this kind of subject matter lends itself to subtler character work (though I can see other people might have an issue here).
I really, really liked Zodiac, but it’s worth bearing in mind that I love a well-made thriller (as you might have guessed from my positive reaction to this film) and Fincher is one of my favourite directors. But yeah, definitely a film worth seeing, and a step above Prisoners in my opinion.
Okay, it’s on my netflix que; i will try to watch sometime this week.
Nice review man. I was not going to bother with this one. Like your opening sentence suggests, it sort of came across pretty bland and conventional in the marketing that I saw. But I keep hearing very positive things so I might have to check it out.
I think I liked it more than most people; I think that’s partly explained by my love of great cinematography and slow-paced thrillers. I do think the plot is incredibly complex but absolutely watertight, but a number of people seemed to have missed some key details and therefore not enjoyed the film as much as they might have otherwise.
Great review. Especially agree with the points about changed tone and sidelined females.
Thanks! This is one of those films that I like a whole lot while fully recognising it has some problems.
I hear that. I think the problems a bit more significant than you do (I gave this one a C+), but it had the potential to be a really impacting film and was still an interesting one.
Honestly, I probably would have liked this movie even if the acting was terrible and the plot made no sense. Deakins’ cinematography just pushes my buttons 😀
For good reason. He is masterful.
Great review! Wow – you liked it a lot more than I did. You’re making me feel bad about being quite harsh in my review! 😉 I may have to re-think things… Mainly, I just hated that there were too many unanswered questions, especially when it came to Gyllenhaal’s character. It seemed like there was so much more to his character and that they just decided to leave some big backstory of his out of the film in the end. I don’t know – I was disappointed by this film…
Having read a few reviews I seemed to like this more than most people. Which is fine, all these things are subjective! I have a fondness for dark-tinged thrillers done right, more so than most, and my opinion of any film is going to be inflated when you stick Roger Deakins behind the camera.
I didn’t feel that the film had too many unanswered questions – I actually thought the script was remarkably tight, resolving any issues/concerns (not that this is necessary for a good film, but I think a movie built on mystery and intrigue should make sure it actually fits together). I liked that we didn’t learn a great deal about Gyllenhaal: he just felt a competent-but-not-superpowered, professional cop. No tragic history, no “breaking the rules to get shit done,” just a passion for his work and a thorough approach to investigation.
Well I’m glad you enjoyed it. 🙂 It’s certainly not a BAD film and I thought all the actors did a great job. I suppose it’s not the type of genre I normally go for so that doesn’t help! Just thought the first half was better than the rest. But I didn’t hate it. 🙂
Pingback: The Top 20 Films of 2013 | ccpopculture
Pingback: The Keeper of Lost Causes (2013) | ccpopculture
Pingback: Enemy (2014) | ccpopculture
Pingback: Drafted Into the War on Drugs: Denis Villeneuve’s Tense Sicario | ccpopculture
Pingback: Arrival’s Ambition is Undone by its Simplistic Screenplay | ccpopculture