In the Valley of Elah (2007)
As a moderate in the Paul Haggis is brilliant/awful debate (Crash is a watchable white liberal guilt cartoon, no more, no less), I feel I should point out a scene that occurs early on in In the Valley of Elah that perfectly encapsulates why his detractors resent the acclaim. The film’s opening is appealingly curt: Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) wakes to a telephone call informing him that his son, whom he didn’t even know had returned from Iraq, has been missing for a few days, and has a few days more until he’s considered AWOL. Hank, in even fewer words than you’d expect from a Jones character, catches his wife (Susan Sarandon) up, and is just as quickly out the door to see what the hell is going on. He may have snuck in a cup of coffee, I don’t remember.
The opening is sparse and mysterious, and, as always, Jones’ minimalist brilliance supplies notes that no dialogue could artfully convey. But that, of course, doesn’t stop Haggis from trying. Hank looks his truck over and pulls into an auto store and asks for something. The auto-man finds the part in question, rings it up and hands it to Hank. Hank asks the auto-man if he’s sure this part will work. The auto-man responds to the affirmative, adding something to the effect of “Sometimes you have to trust someone other than yourself, Hank.”
FALSE! Maybe I’m getting to be a bit of a crank about these sorts of things, but this is exactly the sort of audience insulting, made for TV exposition that drives Haggis’ critics nuts. We don’t need it, Jones’ performance has already clued us in to his tight-assedness, and, just in case it hasn’t, his wife soon throws it back in Hank’s face anyway, in an argument that occurs when they discover that their son has actually been murdered not far from the base. We don’t need to be told twice, we don’t, really, need to be told once, but Sarandon’s accusation at least rings true, old resentment bubbling up at a time of major duress. And before we leave this point behind, let’s face something else; it’s not unreasonable to question an auto-man, that’s just common-fucking-sense.
The rest of In the Valley of Elah is just as you’d expect from a film that features three Oscar Winners in front of the camera and one behind: painless, obvious, and relatively forgettable. Haggis has learned a few tricks since Crash, the dialogue is less self-conscious, and the film plays against our expectations of the standard murder-mystery procedural in a few canny ways. The revelation of the murderer makes sense, too much sense really, so much sense in fact that its a bit of an admirable anti-climax: Hank goes stomping for answers and the answers, as they most likely actually would, turn out to mean pretty much jack-shit. For once, Haggis is making a point with action. The film is slow, humorless and thinks its way too good for you, but it gets better as it moves along, and it is worth seeing once for Jones’ performance. Jones again proves that he’s one of our sharpest under players; imbuing even the clumsiest of scenes with grace and truth.
I think it may be time to introduce the notion that Paul Haggis may be the M. Night Shyamalan of social-conscience pictures. They both have that contrived cross your Ts, dot your Is method of revisiting a supposedly minor (but obviously major) early scene in a film to reaffirm a final point. Crash most certainly qualifies; that boy’s life being spared by the blanks only to be mistaken by the child as an invincibility cloak is a payoff that could very literally grace one of Shyamalan’s fantasies. Haggis and Shyamalan are both also very clearly entertainers who are letting a grander desire to be “important” stifle their creative energy. And they both, whether people wish to admit it or not, still have potential. As the platitude too banal even for their films goes: only time will tell.
★★½
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 am
Oddly, I think I’m a bit more negative on the Haggis debate (at least he’s my favorite punching bag lately), yet I think I liked Elah a little bit more than you.
Chalk it up to expectations, perhaps. Mine were quite low because of my bias.
All of the false moments, including what you point out, annoyed me. The ending annoyed me. TLJ’s character arc annoyed me…it didn’t seem believable, but necessary for Haggis to make his point.
Having said all that, the performances were a pleasure to watch. The cinematography was great. Despite its huge flaws, it still kind of worked for me. It’s frustrating because it could’ve been so much better. Haggis isn’t an untalented guy, but he has no respect for his audience.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:34 am
“I think it may be time to introduce the notion that Paul Haggis may be the M. Night Shyamalan of social-conscience pictures.”
Haha, that’s a great theory as much as I don’t fully agree with it. I’ll throw in a vote for Crash being an incredibly important film (as we can see, the issue is still quite flammable), if not a very well-made one. I admire Haggis in taking on these issues, but his movies aren’t classics or anything. I had about the same response to Elah as you did.
I guess I’d rather watch him attempt to tackle race and war than watch Shyamalan misfire with aliens and comic books.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I know I should rather watch Haggis attempt to tackle race and war than watch Shyamalan misfire with aliens and comic books, but, truthfully, I wouldn’t.
And I love UNBREAKABLE.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Wow, that’s a great comparison, between Haggis and Shyamalan. In each case, they seem to be rather talented directors sabotaged by their own writing more than anything else.
Shyamalan started out more promisingly, but boy he’s sure hit rock bottom. Haggis is at least maintaining a firm grasp of mediocrity.
In the Valley of Elah should have been a stellar film, especially considering how well cast it was. Instead, it’s an unmemorable editorial with several key annoyinng and unnecessary annotations. The auto-man scene actually made me groan and roll my eyes, I remember that plainly.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:44 am
I agree Alexander, and if the script I read is to be believed (they have been in the past) the Shyamalan misfire train isn’t going to stop anytime soon. On the page, THE HAPPENING is about THE VILLAGE quality, with an even worse ending. Hopefully he directed the hell out of that thing.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Well, that’s both disheartening and unsurprising.
The trailer for The Happening is probably my least favorite of the summer films.
I’d heard the script for The Happening was bad news with a terrible ending.
Shyamalan desperately needs to ADAPT somebody else’s screenplay. Like, yesterday.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I don’t take pleasure in this, but The Happening’s ending is easily the worst in Shyamalan’s career.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Wow.
That’s, um, BAD.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I know, stiff competition for sure, but THE HAPPENING’s ending takes the cake. It is kind of a variation of the contrived self-improvement/higher power malarkey of SIGNS, but MUCH more absurd.
There isn’t a twist though.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Well, thanks for that, Chuck… Interestingly, judging merely by the trailer, I sort of guessed that it had an ending likes Signs, since it’s the other film by Shyamalan where the “weirdness” is affecting the whole planet.
I’d like to see Shyamalan’s career take a major twist right about now.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Oh dear. And I had such high hopes for “The Happening.”
Well, as long as he doesn’t cast himself as a messiah artiste in this one it will be a (tiny) step forward.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I think THE HAPPENING will be an improvement over THE VILLAGE and LADY IN THE WATER, the ending may be the pits, but the rest of the script, while boring, should be competent enough to give him something to play with stylistically. We’ll see.