Rendition - when a line is crossed

It's taken me too long but, at long last, I got to see Rendition with Gavin Hood's commentary, and it made me think long and hard about a film I thought I was well used to and very familiar with - and possibly overly attached to - after the film festival treats of Toronto and Rome. However, I realised Gavin Hood had done a good job when, towards the end, I turned off his commentary so that I could watch the events of the story unfold, and appreciate its silent observer, who finally felt able to cross that line and make a difference.


So, in this post tonight, I wanted to look just a little at some of the issues that Gavin Hood raised. Some I had already considered, but, generally, when I see a film, I am an undemanding sponge (in a manner of speaking) and I can fall headfirst into plot holes without a second thought and with complete abandon.


Colour and movement

This one I had got and it illuminates Rendition - how each geographical location has its own colour. We have browns and neutrals in Chicago, blues and steels in Washington, and oranges and reds in the exotic country known only as 'North Africa'. When Reese Witherspoon's character, Isabella, takes her case to Alan and Washington, she is the odd one out, wearing browns against blues. Douglas - Jake Gyllenhaal's character - is likewise singled out in his North African location by his grey suits.



But also there is a change in movement - in Washington the camera is fixed, while in Morocco a scene shows more movement. Washington represents old standards and is solid, but Gavin Hood focuses on less obvious Washington monuments and architectural styles, or just shows little glimpses of evocative emblems. Instead, modern architecture is used to indicate that the old ideals are at threat from a new order, in which extraordinary rendition can be a tool, even though the United States government 'does not torture' (in the words of Corrine Whitman). The camera is used to frame a scene in which the old Washington is pushed into the background - an ideal that is no longer perceived as relevant.


Silent witness

In a film that comprises several stories, not to mention timelines, there is very little time and opportunity for characters to establish themselves. Fat must be cut and the focus must be tight. Gavin Hood says that he avoids clutter in a film and he avoids clutter in a scene. He also relishes the difference between cinema and the theatre - in a film, the director can direct his audience to focus on the listener during a dialogue and not to the person speaking, adding another perspective to the words uttered on the screen.


Gavin speaks with great respect of Jake Gyllenhaal. Jake was given fewer words than almost anyone in Rendition, with a disproportionate amount of screen time, and yet he had an impossible task. Jake was asked to indicate to the audience, through passivity, his increasing disgust with what he was observing. At the same time, he was supposed to suggest to Abasi Fawal that he was unmoved and unmoveable. Jake managed it, showing yet again that he is the master of the pause and the ellipse, speaking in volumes to his audience through a lip sucked or a brow creased. The key to Jake's skill, in Gavin's word, is 'stillness'. The best way to understand the impact of what's happening is by watching the expression on Jake's face.


We watch a man shutting down, just as his lover finds he will roll away from her on the bed and say nothing other than that he had 'a bad day'. But what else can he say? As Gavin says: 'In a way he's two steps behind what actually is happening to him in terms of his own psychological understanding of what's going on.' 'A bad day' says it all.


Defining moments

Life is full of moments that cannot be forgotten and that define the rest of our lives. Several of the characters in Rendition undergo defining moments - including those that result from the loss of a child or the absence of a spouse - but for some these moments are decisions, which, once made, influence a lifetime. Alan and Douglas are the obvious examples - both cross the line.


Peter Sarsgaard's character, Alan, has a suggested history with Isabella and he wants to help until he inevitably reaches his crossroads and he has to make a decision. He takes the road that leaves him a flourishing career, shredding evidence of his altruism. I read this scene in a completely different way from Gavin - I saw Peter drinking that champagne as a way of cementing his choice, regrets went in the bin along with the chewed up picture of Anwar. Gavin says in the commentary that this was a reluctant choice, almost that the champagne caught in the throat: this would be a moment that would lead to selfdoubt and regret.


As for Jake - Douglas crossed the line when he raised his hand in violence against another human being - grasping the throat of Anwar. From that moment, and from that decision, Douglas could not be anything but involved and he gave up a witness' privileges. According to Gavin, it was always important to Jake that there was never a moment when he just knew he had to do something. By contrast, I always felt that there was a moment when Douglas knew he had to try and find some control - and that was the moment when he grabbed Anwar's throat and Douglas knew for himself that physical violence does not work, partly because he had tried it for himself.


Innocence

Isabella never shouts out her husband's innocence - instead, her plea is that she wants to be looked in the eye by someone who can tell her what her husband is supposed to have done. She wants justice. Innocence or guilt is almost not an issue and it is an area into which Isabella is afraid to venture. Gavin says that at one early screening a viewer said that it may have been better if Anwar's guilt had been established - this would make the final debate harder - does guilt justify these means?


Looking one in the eye

Gavin's style is to film at eyelevel, to have one of a speaking pair close to the camera while the eyes of the other are level with the camera and so with us. Also, in this way, we see the story and the cycle of violence through the eyes of the participants and witnesses, most especially through the troubled eyes of Jake's Douglas.


Includes pictures from IHJ.