THE BRAVE ONE by Neil Jordan

How appropriate and smart is it to cast Jodie Foster in a movie that has more than one element that recalls Taxi Driver? It’s the most appropriate thing this whole movie has. Because I must say, I am a fan of Neil Jordan, and am one of those people that would rate highly and recommend films like The Crying Game and Mona Lisa. But it’s easy to see that this movie will not please everyone because, paradoxically, it tries to be appealing to everyone. Another introductory thought could be that because Jordan tries to do that, he forgets to be that Neil Jordan that we know and love, the one that was never afraid to show the grittiness and right down decadence of the everyday violent world, where everything we see may not be in fact what we think it is.

The story is about a woman who is filled with bitterness and anger after she and her fiancé are attacked by three random violent criminals. This bitterness and anger drives her towards becoming a vigilante. The story is in fact quite simple, but what one thinks right away from reading it would be that this is your typical revenge movie, and as such, has nothing different from a Steven Segal movie. The casting of Jodie Foster, going back to that point, is not out of place at all; the is probably the best at portraying that kind of woman, whose weaker appearance really hides a strange strength that defines her as a strong woman. The only other one that can do that, I believe, is Charlize Theron. But the casting of Jodie Foster does something else to the expectation of the movie; it makes us take it a little more seriously than we would a Segal movie, for instance.

I would go as far as to say that it’s a downright disappointment that Neil Jordan’s movie about a vigilante wasn’t so interesting. Neil Jordan does after all have a tendency to deal with the darkest of themes and the strangest of plots, but what makes this particular plot different, or rather unusual, would be the fact that the vigilante in question is a woman, but in that respect, the movie falls a little behind and late of another certain movie, Kill Bill. Kill Bill was just too mainstream, and if we were to associate the two movies, we should see it as the trendsetter, and the Brave One as a devout follower.

But the two movies are different, very different indeed. Which brings me to the point I was making earlier; Jordan tries hard to please all factions of the audience, the intellectual one and the yahoo one, the kind that shouts with joy whenever there is a gory bloody scene. It’s easy to see, however, why both of these factions would ultimately be disappointed. The intellectual one finds it hard to ever find a standard revenge flick interesting. Taking Kill Bill as an example, a lot of critics’ initial response was that it was violent, gory and pointless apart for the fact that it was violent and gory (of course, the critics that did love it saw it as it should have been seen, a post-modernist masterpiece). The intellectual crowd would also be disappointed by the lack of originality in the setting up or the plot, the establishment of he behavioural change in Foster’s vigilante character, in other words, what turned her into a vigilante in the first place. In all honesty, in fact, the killing of a loved one seems like something we have seem so many times before. The intellectual crowd is most likely to be mad at the fact that this film doesn’t pick sides. But what the intellectual crowd will most hate and look forward to pointing out, as I suppose I’m doing right now, is the way in which the commercial and the intellectual points of this movie sadly do not gel. The opposite faction of yahoos, of kids that want to watch what can be defined as a fun movie will probably just find the talk boring, and Jodie Foster’s nose too pointy.

Basically, the film hence, fails to please the extreme categories, and picking sides is something you don’t want to do, because that automatically means that your film will fall into the category of the movies that are just okay; forgettable, well meaning, but ‘moving swiftly on please’.

Yet, I am certainly not saying that I would not recommend this movie. For starters, it is enjoyable once it gets started. Jordan is a skilled craftsman, and although the movement of the camera isn’t always to happy, I never could get the hang of the swinging camera and found it as an implication of the stupidity of the audience that wouldn’t be able to tell that when Foster kills she is not herself and feels possessed by a strange avenging demon, he is able to make his shots powerfully iconic. For starters, there seems to be a great collaboration between him and his lead actress, something that makes Foster look even better in this movie. He knows exactly what we have to see, but also seems to know exactly what she will do to portray the character’s emotions. In fact, I have nothing against the character of the radio show host, who walks around New York city recording its sounds and sharing her thoughts. I also find her relationship to the detective played by Terence Howard very interesting, both in need of somebody, having lost their parterns for different reasons, yet seemingly connecting as the best of friends more than lovers. They also share an incredible sequence, as they have lunch, both obviously knowing more than what they are saying, yet at the same time both wanting to say it but not being able to, because their relationship has become bonding and constricting. It is a great acting test that also highlights a great and solid performance by the talented and somewhat underrated Terence Howard.

The episodes of the killings are brutal and fun. When the movie starts to get too pretentious you really feel it. In her long monologues, she reveals fears and depictions of a post 9/11 New York that are touching, but sometimes too much for the kind of movie that was set up by the vigilante plot. Everything in between, however, is painful, because the movie has no time to be dealing with anything else but the two characters of Foster and, to some extent, Howard. The final, and biggest mistake, is one that I suggested earlier; the movie doesn’t offer a resolution. Is the vigilante a criminal or a modern times hero? Movies like Kill Bill and even the character of Batman seem to be obviously sided. This movie leaves us empty handed, it’s not a very rewarding feeling. It’s one of those instances where, although you know it probably wouldn’t have helped so much, a few more minutes would have helped.