Vantage Point (2008) March 21, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Pete Travis
It’s a bit like Rashomon. There, I said it. Because to even start an analysis of this multi-threaded action thriller without invoking the name of Akira Kurosawa’s 1950 classic is apparently tantamount to treason. But outside of the ’single event from different points of view’ narrative angle, this film has little in common with its Japanese counterpart, especially in terms of the influence it will have on future filmmaking. It’s Rashomon-like in the same way that The Lake House is like Back to the Future. Which is to say that they both deal in time travel, but not that they are both genre classics. Vantage Point isn’t laboured with all the problems of The Lake House [review], but neither does it quite redefine the thriller concept in the way it would like to.
The story opens with the US President arriving at an important summit in a Spanish province. As he takes the stage, however, a sniper shoots him down from one of the surrounding buildings and panic erupts. Amidst the crowds of people fleeing from the area are a few participants who all have differing angles on the event. As a bomb explodes near the stage, we are taken back to the start again, to view the whole event from another character’s perspective. Those featured throughout the course of these various ‘vantage points’ include a television news producer, a Spanish police officer, a camera-wielding tourist, one of the president’s aides, and the president himself. All their stories come together to solve the mystery of what really happened during a crazy half-hour in Spain.
This is a concept movie, and I like concept movies - so yes, while it has been done before, this is the first proper 21st century update for the format and it tries to use that differentiator to its advantage, throwing in modern digital camera technology and a post-24 look at how the highly trained presidential aides can run, jump and crash into things without sustaining an injury. It also takes place over a narrow timeframe, with the whole story occurring in what I would guess starts out at about 10 minutes in time, and slowly expands to about 20 minutes. When we aren’t tracking forwards, we’re zipping backwards to relive the previous events from someone else’s point of view. Like Phone Booth, a similar concept movie that used a tight single location as its USP, this is either something that you’ll buy into, or you won’t. Failing to understand that it’s less about the people and more about how the story is structured may lead to exacerbation each time the Groundhog Day effect kicks in.
As this film is mostly about its ability to craft a tale that doesn’t reveal itself in the first fifteen minutes, I have to commend writer Barry Levy, who has made a concerted effort to structure the film consistently within its own timeframe, and to keep the events updating as we see each side of the story. Sometimes we are treated to more information than others, and there are points when the recap can be nothing more than just that; a reverse-angle version of a scene we already saw. But the filmmakers keep on the right side of inventive when it comes to hiding certain details or outcomes (one such tactic - Dennis Quaid sees something we don’t get to see - they use twice), and most of the endings to each ‘vantage point’ come with enough irresolution to see it through. This is not the easiest kind of story to tell, and they work the format, rather purposefully, to suit their needs.
This inevitably leads to some failings which present themselves at all stages of the film. First of all, it uses a simple story (a necessity of the style) but then burdens it with some predictable plot turns that want to be all-out twists, but are far too overused and obvious to come as any surprise. You won’t guess it all, but even some of the explanation behind who is running the operation and how they are doing it is revealed to be slightly outlandish, even in this modern age. Also, and for me the biggest stumbling block, was that after 75 minutes, this film is crying out for a final chapter that is riddled with aspects of all the stories presented so far, and turns the tables on things we saw earlier to act like a drawstring and pull the whole plot together. This, unfortunately, never occurs. What we do get is a slightly anti-climatic final denouncement and the kind of narrative closure that only bothers to bring the film to an end, rather than raise your appreciation of it further.
British director Pete Travis brings enough visual enticement to the film to keep it interesting, while delivering a fairly clear geography so you don’t get lost when following the different points of view. His cast list is rather good too, including main roles for Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, and a sufficiently high-profile, Oscar-winning, Forest Whitaker. This film demands very little of any of them, however, and as a result most of their talents go to waste. 
Even some of the smaller roles go to the likes of Sigourney Weaver playing the television news producer, and William Hurt as the President, but again they are barely given the chance to make a performance out of what they’re offered. The actors aren’t really disappointing, just never stretched to go beyond the plot-forwarding objective of the story.
Vantage point is an interesting movie and one that keeps itself duefully short at only 90 minutes. In order to fulfil its action quota there is plenty of running, exploding and one lengthy car chase made more redeemable by its narrow street locations. Where the film really succeeds is in its ability to create a rather claustrophobic atmosphere during the central crowd scenes, or working each character into the story progressively so you can keep a grasp on who’s who. It’s entirely a one-viewing-only kind of film, mainly because it goes out of it’s way to plug all the holes and make you understand anything you might have missed, which is a shame because re-watch value can be beneficial in this genre. It needed Memento ingenuity, but what it gets is 24 plus, well, Rashomon. Although I’m still not convinced that the decisions here were influenced by that film. Vantage Point is burdened with the comparison for trying to make a different kind of thriller. I mean, secret service agents, murderous terrorists, bombs and car chases? Still think Kurosawa is the influence? Then I’d ask you to heed the film’s tagline and “look again”.
Comments»
I was quite looking forward to this… til I started reading all the reviews. Still haven’t seen it, though will be watching it in the next week or two (one way or another) as it’ll be useful for my dissertation (at 58 years old, Rashomon rather stretches “contemporary context”!)
Yeah, I too had higher expectations after seeing the rather well put together trailer. I’d never heard of the film before that, but it jumped straight onto my ‘looks interesting’ list. Go into it with the right frame of mind and there’s still plenty to enjoy.
Good luck with the dissertation!