Open Water (OK)
First things first. When they say that this film is “based on true events,” what the filmmakers mean is that at some point in history, some people have been stranded in the middle of the ocean, sometimes with sharks as company. A press release from the studio says, “the idea for the film came from a particular news event that circulated in dive magazines and newsletters a few years ago,” which, presumably, refers to the story of Tom and Eileen Lonergan. The director, however, is quick to point out that the film is not about anyone, but about the principle of the situation. Fine. But so is every movie, isn’t it?
The main characters floating in open water. This scene covers roughly half of the movie’s visual style.
“Truth in advertising” complaints aside, this was an interesting film. The concept has been done before, but when done effectively, is quite engaging; take a story that hasn’t been run through the Hollywood ringer, a betacam, a production team of five, and some cheap actors, and then make a movie using the wide world as your special effects. That said, sometimes the movie was engaging and sometimes it was not. I was left flat by the beginning of the movie, while the middle was genuinely frightening. The end was, well, controversial and frustrating.
Let’s take this chronologically. The beginning did a nice job of setting up the film as a low-budget, independent piece. The whole thing was shot using a betacam, and the director and his wife did a great job of not making me motion-sick due to the lack of steadicam equipment. Still, I got the feeling that I was watching a Grade 10 art class project, complete with awkward camera angles and shots of weird scenery. The acting wasn’t much better; I liked the characters individually - more or less, anyway - but they had no chemistry together. I got the feeling that the director wanted them to seem emotionally distant from each other, but they just came across as being distant from any sense of connection I might have with them. They also seemed to easily accept their plight early on, another point that prevented me from identifying with them. I recall a time when I was caught in a canoe with my brother in the middle of a small lake under moderate wind. While I wouldn’t say that I immediately panicked at the thought of not making it back to shore before dark, I pretty much immediately panicked.
The middle is another story. It was like a whole new movie; some reviewers called the ocean the “third character,” and maybe that was what did it. Finally, someone who had screen presence. With the camera at head-bobbing level and nothing but waves receding into the distance, I got the feeling that I was out there alone with the distraught couple. The clever use of real sharks (apparently, they used a shark wrangler who threw chunks of bloody tuna into the water next to the actors to attract the actual grey reef and bull sharks to the set) caused a stir in the audience every time one appeared. Later, a few overhead shots of the couple with nothing but grey underneath them instead of the navy-coloured water was particularly chilling. The chemistry of the characters also picked up considerably, accompanied by (or perhaps because of) a rise in the caliber of the acting.
Nicely complementing the wide shot of the couple as they float, this close-up represents the other half of the film’s visual style.
The film’s production notes indicate that the director was trying to portray what it is like to be in an extreme situation. My problem with the final scenes is that in the end I felt that that was all there was. I guess I’m picky. When I watch a movie, I place the most importance on how the story stands up as a narrative. You want to do a study in psychology, fine, but make sure to spin an interesting tale while you do it. One guy in the theater stormed out during the last scene (the one where the theater audience collectively realized that they had sat through 78 minutes of wave action only to discover that the 79th minute would not be the redeeming moment). That said, I did like the ending of story, what little there was of it to like. It was somewhat perplexing, but also unpredictable and profound. But, ultimately, it left me out in the cold as I realized, like the rest of the audience, that there was nothing else to the movie than just a few clever ideas.
Aesthetically, the scenery was very appealing. I kept wishing for more beauty shots, however - and not, I might add, of the female lead’s breasts, which we see in two ridiculous scenes, the worst of which is a near full-frontal nude scene at the beginning of the film that has nothing to do with anything. Even low-brow comedies have a purpose for their nudity, if only to draw the teenage male audience. Not apparently so, here. Boobs-rant aside, there weren’t very many “classic” close-ups of the beautiful fish and interesting corals that populate the ocean, which I would have much preferred to see. On the plus side, the sea and sky were displayed at various times of day and in various conditions in breathtaking style.
I really liked the premise of this film, which is one that has fascinated me ever since I heard chilling tales of WWII sailors surviving a sub attack only to fall prey to the sea and its denizens. It was a real pleasure not to see CGI (or even old-fashioned plastic) animals. I also thought the camera-work added an intimate touch that is sometimes lacking in modern filmmaking, and the minimalist style tended to be quite thought-provoking. Too bad that I never felt like I cared for the characters - I watched only out of morbid curiosity as to what would happen to them next. This was basically a two-scene movie - the first, when they were out of the water, and the second, when they were in it. The pacing of the movie was acceptable, considering that the majority of it was the latter, but while it didn’t really get bogged down, there wasn’t much to watch. Once the plight of the main characters was revealed, the movie pretty much coasted and never offered anything new. In the end, the lack of depth and raison d’être makes it difficult for me to recommend this movie. If you want a few thrills, there are some to be had. But if you prefer your psychoanalytical look at the phenomenon of being marooned to be accompanied by a sound storyline featuring interesting people, go rent “Cast Away.”
