A married couple's life is turned upside down when the wife is accused of murdering her boss. Her husband John would spend the next few years trying to get her released, but there's no evidence that negates the evidence against her. When the strain of being separated from her husband and son gets to her, John decides to find a way to break her out.
22 Feb The Next Three Days (2010)
Pregnant
I don’t like Paul Haggis as a man. His work does nothing for me; I am not altered or improved by experiencing his shapes.
But I have to admit that the man knows how to tell a story. He engages, and those working with him — primarily Crowe — know how to collaborate with his techniques. I first noticed this trait in Crowe in ‘Gladiator’. He is profoundly aware of the director‘s intent, and the filmmaking techniques that support that intent but which are outside the usual scope of an actor‘s mission.
This is essentially a film about fatherhood, though framed as addressing justice (itself the father of revenge movies). Crowe seems to ingest this intent as if every element of his work is addressed as a child. He is remarkable, with a remarkable ability to understand and communicate that knowledge. It is made explicit in a scene where he sits by the side of the highway with his wife after a near catastrophe, while we are out of breath. He and she are silent but a deep communication is made that re-centres the film. I imagine this was the first scene written. Haggis is readable that way.
It is also a film which engages by having every scene tell us less information that we are used to, with just barely enough left out for us after a while to place our narrative listener not in the scene, but in the scene following. I have remarked that this is something Russell and Ridley seem to have invented and Haggis would have noticed. Crowe supports that here. I imagine the script girl being driven crazy.
Haggis takes this ‘just enough omitted‘ technique beyond the slowly unfolding parts of the film into the hectic chase at the end. We hardly notice, but this editing of the exciting part is the by now common ‘Transformers‘ technique. What makes it seem more masterful is how the technique is integrated into the soul of the thing and not just a device which originated in Michael Bay trying to save money on effects.
If you are a parent or near being one, this will likely engage. It won‘t matter much. It won‘t transform you. But it may remind you a bit about yourself.
Posted in 2011
Ted’s Evaluation — 3 of 3: Worth watching.
No Comments