Trending
    • CWB Jury & nominees for MOZAIK Bridging The Borders Award at 2023 Lucas FF
    • Jasmin Mozaffari’s short film ‘Motherland, wins TIFF award
    • Poor Thing, Wins Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival
    • Toronto Film Festival 2023
    • Iranian Influential Women: Rakhshan Bani-Etemad
    • Sundance Film Festival Asia
    • Enea, review
    • French rising star, Adèle Exarchopoulos, 4 top favorite movies
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    Cinema Without Borders
    • Home
    • Feature Story
    • News
    • Conversations
    • Festivals
    • Cinema Tech
    • Film Reviews
    • CinéEqual
    • Other Arts
    • Archives
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    Cinema Without Borders
    You are at:Home»Film Reviews»Papillon, Film review

    Papillon, Film review

    0
    By World Cinema Reports' Editors on 08/20/2018 Film Reviews, Videos

    To contrast Franklin J. Schaffner’s 1973 Papillon with its remake is to underscore certain differences between commercial films of two distinct generations. The original is the sort of pungent prison drama that could have only been made in America in the late 1960s or ’70s, as it evinces a grasp of detail and cruelty that’s almost entirely absent in contemporary mainstream cinema. Michael Noer’s remake is more generic and romantic, with a duller sense of character and setting. It’s a reasonably diverting genre exercise, but Schaffner’s original humbles it by every criterion of excellence.

    Also based on the novel by Henri Charrière, Noer’s Papillon takes shortcuts in establishing its settings and characterizations for the sake of sentimentalizing the friendship between two prisoners in the 1930s as they attempt to escape from a brutal penal colony in French Guiana. (Charrière was once a safecracker who served in such a colony, and his nickname is Papillon because of a butterfly tattoo on his chest.) At the colony, Papillon (Charlie Hunnam) meets Louis Degas (Rami Malek), a wealthy counterfeiter known for the stash of money he keeps up his ass, which simultaneously protects and endangers him. Papillon can handle himself in a place as “kill or be killed” as French Guiana, which is made up of jungles, deserts, and islands even more forbidding than the central camp. Degas is a clever and resourceful man of the mind, who’s not without his uses in French Guiana but who nevertheless requires a benefactor such as Papillon. Plotting several elaborate escapes over many years, the men forge an unexpected friendship that represents a traditional kind of male camaraderie: between the alpha and the beta.

    It proffers the sort of cinematic nowhere place that’s all too common of an increasingly corporate, globalized cinema.

    In the original film, a charismatic and vulnerable Steve McQueen elucidates the intelligence lurking underneath Papillon’s steely exterior, while Dustin Hoffman, a master of playing nerds with an undercurrent of ferocity, reveals Degas to be powered by an aggression, bitterness, and will to survive that’s in sync with Papillon’s worldview. In comparison to McQueen’s take on the character, Hunnam’s Papillon is a more typically cocksure stud who’s accorded a needless new prologue that asserts his erotic bona fides in Paris. And while Malek’s Degas has a distinctive and prickly physicality, he’s a generally soft and accommodating buddy, who seems far more likely to get killed in the French Guiana than Hoffman’s character in the original.

    In Schaffner’s film, Papillon, suffering a grueling two-year stint in solitary confinement and on the verge of losing his mind, nearly betrays Degas for mercy, and Degas even says that such an action wouldn’t be a betrayal in this hellish setting. These scenes, which piquantly suggest the moral relativism of such extreme living, aren’t in the remake, as so much contemporary cinema is insistent on offering us unflinching superheroes of unswayable will.

    The sun is harsh and unrelenting in the original film, as is the darkness when Papillon is locked in a closed cell, while the prison is vividly punishing, with alligators, insects, crabs, and other creatures assaulting the inmates. The film is also rife with precise, militaristic staging—characteristic of the director of The Planet of the Apes and Patton—that unrelentingly visualizes the fascism of this environment. Alas, all these elements are soft-pedaled by Noer for the sake of fashioning a simpler, creamier escapist film. When a guard explains to Papillon the maddening possibilities of solitary confinement, in Schaffner’s film he warns the protagonist not to hope for anything and to masturbate as little as possible so as to preserve his strength. In Noer’s film, this warning is cut in half, including only the admonishment about the danger of hope. And the effect of this elision in the new Papillon isn’t incidental, as the scene is leached of detail to foreground a platitude that will be familiar to viewers of Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption.

    The original Papillon embodies how ’70s-era cinema could casually treat audiences like adults with rich, unresolved, novelistic textures, while this remake proffers the sort of cinematic nowhere place that’s all too common of an increasingly corporate, globalized cinema. Despite its obsession with friendship, the origins of the new Papillon feel cynical, as if a producer asked during a meeting, “How can we sell a French prison drama to Generation Z?”

    By CHUCK BOWEN for Slant Magazine

    Papillon
    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    World Cinema Reports' Editors

    Cinema Without Borders' reporters from around the globe search and find international cinema content for our audience. when an outside source is used, we provide you with a link to the original source at the end of the article

    Related Posts

    CWB Jury & nominees for MOZAIK Bridging The Borders Award at 2023 Lucas FF

    Jasmin Mozaffari’s short film ‘Motherland, wins TIFF award

    Poor Thing, Wins Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival

    Comments are closed.



    Most donations are tax deductible.
    Latest Stories
    09/27/2023

    CWB Jury & nominees for MOZAIK Bridging The Borders Award at 2023 Lucas FF

    09/19/2023

    Jasmin Mozaffari’s short film ‘Motherland, wins TIFF award

    09/10/2023

    Poor Thing, Wins Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival

    09/07/2023

    Toronto Film Festival 2023

    Bridging The Border Award

    At a time when physical, religious, racial, cultural, and economic borders divide the population of our planet, efforts to bridge those borders should be appreciated. In that spirit, Cinema Without Borders presents Bridging the Borders Award to the films that are most successful in bridging and …Read More

     

    I, Immigrant, International Film Festival
    CineEqual

    CinéEqual represents filmmakers, institutions, and community members with a focus on social justice cinema. As an integrated unit of CWB, it promotes a diverse, inclusive, and equitable democratic society that values the worth of all humans…Read More

     

    About
    About

    Cinema Without Borders is a meeting place of independent cinema. Based in Los Angeles, CWB puts the spotlight on rising talent around the globe to achieve its mission, which is to serve and strengthen communities of filmmakers and film students across real and virtual borders.

    Copyright Cinema Without Borders@2018

    Popular Posts
    01/02/2001

    Cinecon 46-The 46th edition of the Classic Film Festival

    10/09/2006

    An Interview with Jonathan Wolf, Managing Director of AFM

    10/11/2006

    Film & TV production in Afghanistan

    Article Photos
    NasserFarhoudiWP
    SiggrpphSlider
    FundingCoverImage
    6-RADUSlider
    Nouredin-WP-Slider
    NOHOFestival-WP-Slider
    MiamiFF-WP-Slider
    MarkTamez-WP-Slider
    LouderThanBombs-WP-Slider
    HP-Rick-WP-Slider
    HP-Bridging-2-WP-Slider
    HP-Bridging-1-WP-Slider
    Contacts & Credits

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.