Movie Reviews
Movie Review: “Beirut” and the Benefits of Soft Power
April 21, 2018 - Movie Reviews
Year: 2018
Genre: Drama
Directed: Brad Anderson
Stars: Jon Hamm, Rosamund Pike, Dean Norris, Shea Whigham, Larry Pine, Mark Pellegrino, Idir Chender, Ben Affan, Leila Bekhti, Alon Abutbul, Kate Fleetwood, Douglas Hodge
Production: Bleecker Street
It’s been a minute since I’ve seen a spy story as tactile and as fascinated with its own inner workings as Beirut. To my recollection the last time I’ve seen something in the ballpark was adapted by a John le Carre novel a la The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011). Though, the look and feel of Beirut is more reminiscent of the little seen and underappreciated Brad Pitt movie Spy Game (2001), where the young protégé of a retiring CIA agent is taken political prisoner. Much like that movie, which was also written by Tony Gilroy, Beirut elects to make things personal which by in-large is a good move and makes the difference.
Set primarily in 1982, Jon Hamm stars as Mason Skiles, a former diplomat whose retirement from the State Department came after a family tragedy in the titular city. Now a drunk, negotiating local labor disputes, Skiles is once again put in a position of intrigue when a former friend (Pellegrino) is kidnapped by a terrorist splinter group. Asked by name to negotiate a deal, Skiles finds that there’s a lot more at stake in the war-torn capital of Lebanon than first meets the eye.
First and foremost Beirut is a historical fiction with emphasis on the fiction. Many of the major events highlighted by the movie have been altered to fit into an abidingly old-fashioned story about old friends, familial ties and inter-departmental pi**ing contests. Larger events certainly shape these personal conflicts but the political significance of said events take a backseat to create a tighter story, imbue Skiles’s character arc with pathos, and connect Rosamund Pike in way that makes us question whether she exists in this story for good or ill.
In a movie that actively emphasizes the strength of soft power; I personally feel this is the right tact. The film swims in a murky soup of ever changing motives and realities that, even when dumbed down may prove baffling. It’s also far more grounded than some of Tony Gilroy’s other screenplays (cough cough, the Bourne movies, cough cough) which is great for gritty realism and fleetingly interesting for foreign policy wonks, but not immediately engaging for audiences in Peoria.
Thankfully Jon Hamm as our protagonist proves immediately engaging – a master’s class in intelligence and poise. His Skiles is an unwilling hero in a classic sense, but when he stumbles into his first fight-or-flight moments, something in him switches on. He exhibits a natural talent in the art of arbitrage and it’s obvious that he not only takes joy in his work but seems almost addicted to it. The beginning of the film has him in the bottom of a bottle of alcohol, the end of the film has him proudly strutting, looking for the next challenge and happy to be in his element. Could he then, at that moment be considered a symbol for American interventionalism? The epilogue seems to suggest so.
But of course with a movie so old-fashioned and so caught up in the personal stakes of our hero, Beirut reveals a fatal flaw in its lack of diverse viewpoints. French actor Idir Chender plays the only Lebanese character of any significance and his motivations are put into a small enough box as to come across as petty. Much ado is made about Beirut turning into a warzone where before it was “the Paris of the Middle East,” yet very little attention is given to how exactly it became that way. It’s actually kind of unpleasant to consider that if you were to count the minutes of screen time, more attention was given to the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Americans than the actual people living in Lebanon i.e. the Lebanese! And a quick Google search reveals I’m not the only one uncomfortable with this.
Still, given the time period Beirut is supposed to be set in, the absence of voices arguably proves its own form of self-criticism. I wouldn’t put it past director Brad Anderson (who also directed episodes of Treme, The Wire and Fringe), that he made the confluence of white voices angling for influence very purposeful. As if to say the chaos that consumed Lebanon between 1975 and 1990 could have been grappled with, had the country not been used as a pawn in shortsighted geo-political games.
I don’t know – perhaps I’m grasping at straws to justify Beirut’s larger oversights. I’m personally of the opinion that when a movie uses intelligence and craft as opposed to explosions to propel a spy story, it should be supported. I’m of the opinion much of the controversy could have been avoided if they just called it something other than Beirut… Don Draper Among the Ciders, perhaps?
Final Grade: B-
Author
I am just an ordinary man with maybe a little too much time on my hands, forcing myself to watch as many movies as possible.
