By Lauren Wissot
[Traitor opens today in wide release.]
Traitor, an international espionage thriller written and directed by Jeffrey Nachmanoff (better known as the guy who wrote the global warming thriller The Day After Tomorrow), pits Guy Pearce’s southern Baptist FBI man Roy Clayton against Don Cheadle’s devout Muslim, maybe renegade, former U.S. soldier Samir Horn in a cat and mouse game across several continents and 17 cities. The movie is loaded with misguided Muslims and Americans alike, all of them just trying to do the right thing and slaughtering innocents in the process, so it comes as no surprise that several of the crew (including DP J. Michael Muro) and Cheadle himself were involved in the faux-deep car wreck that was Crash. For the Traitor script is as jam-packed with simpleminded and heavy-handed exposition-posing-as-profound-thought as it is with suicide bombings and hand-to-hand combat action—all of it so painful to listen to and observe that I wanted to blow myself up during the first half. And I don’t even like virgins.
Which is too bad since the story concept (originating with executive producer Steve Martin!) is as complex and interesting as the script is clichéd and tedious. Cheadle’s Samir is a living lens through which the twin paradoxes of causing violence by doing the right thing and saving lives by doing the wrong thing are magnified. Happily, the story’s twists and turns are both numerous and unpredictable. Yet the lightning speed pacing, courtesy of slick editing and drive-by camera moves through the numerous foreign locales (all set to jaunty Middle Eastern music), feels like nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract us from the atrocious, one-note, tone deaf script. Any visual enjoyment is tempered by the Al Gore lecture posing as the film's dialogue (only An Inconvenient Truth is more thrilling and informative).
One montage sequence in which Samir’s background is monotonously droned from different mouths is particularly grating. An FBI agent reads from a file that Samir’s father was Sudanese and his mother is from Chicago (yeah, got that from several other scenes), cut to another person talking about how he had discipline problems in high school—nearly killed a kid!—and on and on. And does any of this make any difference to the story? Of course not. Nachmanoff employs this unnecessary drivel as running time filler, ignoring the very apparent fact that having other characters lay out the lead's back-story is wet cement, not cinematic in the slightest. And some of the lines are unintentionally hilarious, as when Clayton’s old school partner Max Archer (eerie-eyed Neal McDonough) reads a file and suddenly grasps that some bombing victims may have been fake: “Wait—these people died as infants!” he declares.
However, what’s not so humorous are the many clichéd Muslim characters—either piously praying or cynically drinking wine—surrounding Cheadle’s three-dimensional one. In the press notes, Nachmanoff and his producers take pride in having cast actual Arabs in the roles of, uh, Arabs! But this whole “we hired Arabs to play Arabs,” p.c. self-congratulating is offensive in light of the fact that not one Arab is serving in any key position of power on the film. Without Arabs in the all important roles of producers or writers, director or cinematographer, Nachmanoff’s simply putting an American point of view into the mouths of Arab actors, then hiding behind that flimsy mask and patting himself on the back for his Muslim “sensitivity” (as superficial an act as making Pearce’s Clayton “complicated” by having him major in Arabic in college). Personally, I’d rather see Benicio del Toro play Samir’s terrorist pal Omar over French-Moroccan hottie Saïd Taghmaoui (from Mathieu Kassovitz’s La Haine) and have an Arab at the helm.
Yet it’s apparent why impressive talent like Cheadle (who needs to challenge himself soon by just playing an out-and-out badass villain, as his likability is wearing out its welcome), Pearce, and Jeff Daniels (as an independent contractor for the C.I.A.) signed on to this grand idea that doesn’t deliver. Cheadle got onboard for a chance to explore a complicated and contradictory leading man. (Unfortunately, as deep as Samir is, he’s still tied to an unsubtle script.) Aussie Guy Pearce wanted the chance to don a good ole boy accent. (Unfortunately, it sounds like southern fried Australia.) And Jeff Daniels probably just wanted to fund his Purple Rose Theatre Company in Michigan. All sound reasons in my book. But if I learned anything from watching Traitor, it’s that sometimes doing what you think is the right thing just ain’t good enough.
Brooklyn-based writer Lauren Wissot is the publisher of the blog Beyond the Green Door, the author of the memoir Under My Master's Wings, and a columnist for Spout Blog.
Jihad for Dummies: Traitor—Take 1
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Jihad for Dummies: Traitor—Take 1
Labels:
Lauren Wissot,
New Releases (Theater)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great review...love your balance between description of particular devices and analysis on how/why they do or don't work. I'd already long since decided not to waste my time on this one in theaters, but the reviews have been interesting enough to see it on DVD. God knows, this thing might get some Oscar nominations.
Re: Cheadle playing a villain, I second that. Though not quite antagonistic, one of my favorite parts of his has always been the gang leader in Bulworth.
Thas right, Lauren, this movie's got genyoo-wine ay-rabs in the cast. (<--Slim Pickens voice.)
Lovely review/jihad there.
I agree about the dialogue. It all reminds me of a scene in the espionage show Alias where the main spy chick lectures her newborn about the evils of terrorism and the sacrifices she makes "to keep you safe." Another scene has a guy almost busting out crying as he expresses his gratitude for the thankless deeds the CIA performs on our behalf. It helps that the CIA employee he's thanking is another hot spy chick. Passive-aggressive motherfuckers-- turn and face the audience already!
Yes, well at least the filmmakers didn’t brag about the production team. (Slim Pickens voice) “Both our costume designer and makeup guy are gay! We love the gays!”
Ah, get off your high horse. Maybe it's not Shakespeare, but it was interesting and since most of the movie going public is not that interested in high-brow filmmaking, this might be the only way to get this story across to them. Besides, what's wrong with being reminded that sometimes it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys and when killing seems to be the only way we know how to solve problems or get our point across, there are no winners.
“since most of the movie going public is not that interested in high-brow filmmaking, this might be the only way to get this story across to them.”
This is the kind of condescending attitude towards audiences that allows Hollywood to keep churning out films like “Traitor.” As I made clear in my review, I have no problem with the themes (originating with Steve Martin) the movie addresses, which are quite laudable. I have a problem with bad filmmaking, i.e., the general movie-going public deserves a better delivery system for that message. “Traitor” didn’t need a highbrow director, just a smarter one than Nachmanoff.
Post a Comment