web
counter
 

The Debt Review: An Espionage Thriller in Three Acts, But You Can Skip the First Two

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (7)



debt_worthington.jpg

“The reason four soldiers could walk a thousand Jews to the gas chambers was because your people only thought about themselves. No one would step forward, make a sacrifice, even when we took your children. All you think about are yourselves,” Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen), an evil Nazi doctor, says to Rachel (Jessica Chastain), a Mossad agent in 1966. That statement underpins the thematic through-line of John Madden’s espionage thriller, The Debt. Or at least, it’s meant to. Unfortunately, the themes get lost in the time-shifting and muddled in the narrative twists. There’s meant to be a message of redemption here, but it’s buried in an espionage thriller that takes too long to lift off and then, once it does, loses its way.

It doesn’t make The Debt a bad movie; there’s a modest mystery at the heart of the film, some strong performances, and it plays with some interesting ideas, particularly those about justice and process, even if it does abandon them in the third act.

The Debt opens in 1997; Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren) is at the book launch of her daughter, who has written a non-fiction account of the experiences of Singer and two other Mossad agents, Stephan (Marton Csokas) and David (Sam Worthington), in 1966. What we see in the opening 10 minutes of the film is David throwing himself in front of an 18-wheeler on the way to the book launch in 1997, and 30 years previously, Singer shooting and killing the Dieter Vogel as he attempts to escape the apartment he’s being held in, the event that forms the basis of the book written in 1997.

The Debt then movies back into 1966 and tracks the events leading up to the escape and shooting of the Dieter Vogel, the romantic entanglements between Rachel, Stephan, and David, and what happened then that provoked David to take his own life in 1997. That’s the major dramatic problem with The Debt, however. We know how the events in 1966 will unfold — or at least we think we do — and we spend the first two slow-paced acts of The Debt waiting for it to get there. It’s a curious stretch, as we’re led to believe that the moral conflict is between the easy choice of killing Vogel immediately or the harder, more principled choice to sneak him back to Israel and put him on trial for war crimes. However, the proper historical context is never put in place for this conflict, nor is the Vogel character developed well enough to create ample friction.

It turns out, however, that that’s not what’s at play, anyway, and by the time the action moves back to 1997 in the third act, the first two acts are rendered largely moot, both from the standpoint of the story and that of the characters, who are too grim and detached in the 60’s version to elicit much investment. Chastain invites a modicum of sympathy, but Worthington is his typical wooden self, while Csokas vacillates between two emotions: Stoic and hot-tempered. There is also some terribly distracting miscasting: Tom Wilkinson plays the 1997 version of Marton Csokas while CiarĂ¡n Hinds plays the 1997 version of Sam Worthington, but physically, the roles should be reversed, and it makes trying to keep track of who is who in 1997 almost impossible.

However, The Debt does find traction with Mirren in the third act, propelling the plot forward so quickly that it becomes difficult to open the door before it slams into it. The door here is the Hollywood influence; The Debt is a remake of an Israeli film, and with three screenwriters — including Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass) and Peter Straughan (Men Who Stare at Goats) — essentially rewriting someone else’s story, you can almost feel the threads of the original film split apart. The poorly developed themes about Jewish history and identity are abandoned, and the message of redemption gets buried under the Hollywood hoo-ra. Neither is Madden (Shakespeare in Love, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin) a director capable of pulling the intangibles to the surface. He’s more interested in mood than he is theme, and it costs The Debt some much needed resonance.

Nevertheless, in a Hollywood marketplace that panders to the 18-24 year olds, The Debt shouldn’t be completely dismissed. It’s modest adult entertainment that boasts the talents of Mirren and Chastain, and when the alternative is another superhero origins story or The Great American Orgy, The Debt fares quite well by comparison.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



If You're Going to Be an Asshole, That's Fine, I Respect Your Choice, But Don't Do It In Front of Me: Dancing With the Stars Cast Backlash Makes Me Tired and Sad | Look It's Him, No Not Him, The Other One. What's His Face. 10 Actors We Feel Should Be More Famous Than They Are.









Comments

Trying to keep track of who's who b/w 2 people is nearly impossible...? Movies like Freaky Friday must blow your fucking mind then.

Posted by: Ted at August 31, 2011 4:41 PM

Too bad; I had heard about this from a friend and was hoping for great things from this; it has such rich source material, you know?

Additionally, my lady bits should never be put on the Acadamy voting board - no matter how wooden Sam Worthington (always) is, they want to give him everything.

Posted by: noodlestein at August 31, 2011 5:47 PM

We'll probly Netflix this.

It's an eternal mystery to me how that stiff Worthington gets into major pictures. Does he have blackmail pics? Has he sold his soul to the devil for a career? Maybe having no soul is why he has no charisma or personality of any kind. I may have cracked the mystery!

Posted by: logan at August 31, 2011 6:03 PM

Just saw this. I thought the points came across perfectly clearly. Further, Worthington was serviceable (but only in that specific role (aside from his accent)!). Chastain and Mirren killed it. So did Christensen. Super-awesome-fantastic movie? Meh. Really good? Yeah, and generally well acted to boot. And interesting. I'm totally comfortable recommending it. What else are you gonna see?

Posted by: coryo at August 31, 2011 8:16 PM

i feel as if i've been watching trailers for this film for about 6 months now...leading me to wonder whether or not it was actually going to screen.
on our way to watch it now, so i at least hope to leave the theater with an "yeah. ok." as opposed to a "sonofabloodybitchinghell!"

i guess we'll just have to wait and see...

Posted by: beet salad at September 1, 2011 12:01 AM

Couldn't disagree with you more. If your brain is still full of the summer muck, like Cowboys and...(I can't even bring myself to write it, cause that means I'll have to remember I saw it.) then this movie won't work for you. You have to think about this one. You have to ask the ethical questions. And you have to decide who you dislike least because no one in the movie is wildly admirable. And if you're a woman you have to cross your legs and contemplate dedication to cause vs. DEDICATION to cause. Chastian's character is committed to the mission like a pig has a commitment in a breakfast. I will admit that the captivity scenes, with the Butcher of Buchenwald trying to mentally torture his captors, needs work. The low tech, low resources spy mission is a direct contradiction to every Bond movie we've ever seen, but it has the advantage of being realistic and therefore more dangerous than Bond. And Sam Worthington is still the biggest waste of screen space since Pias Zadora, but overall, this is a thinking person's movie.

Posted by: khia213 at September 2, 2011 12:37 PM

I was, I admit, reading sloppily, but for some reason my brain told me "Sam Waterston" when you wrote "Sam Worthington," and that you had accidentally flipped the 1997/1966 casting.

Then "his typical wooden self" poofed that small daydream into dust.

Posted by: Salieri2 at September 3, 2011 3:10 PM