Toronto Film Review: ‘Papillon’

P_D01_23529.NEF
Jose Haro for Variety

Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek take the penal-colony punishment once doled out to Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman.

Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman were at the height of their stardoms in 1973, and Franklin J. Schaffner’s original “Papillon” film that year was a prestige vehicle scaled for greatness — at two-and-a-half hours that felt longer, treating its epic tale too solemnly for some tastes. Nonetheless, its somewhat self-conscious gravity has aged well.

In almost every respect, Danish director Michael Noer’s remake — which as “inspired by true events” credits equally real-life protagonist Henri Charrière’s memoirs and the earlier screenplay as sources — is a humbler enterprise, although still ambitious and impressive enough. New stars Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek are neither burdened nor burnished by already-iconic star status; this brisker telling is less pretentious if also less distinctive as large-scale filmmaking. In the end, what matters most is that the principally unchanged story of survival in colonial French Guiana remains a compelling one, no less when played as a relatively straightforward action-suspense saga rather than as a gargantuan allegory about the Indomitable Human Spirit.

Noer and scenarist Aaron Guzikowski open things up with a rotely over-amped prelude showing Charrière’s roguish persona as a safecracker (played by Hunnam), AKA “Papillon,” in 1931 Paris. His underground high life with glam girlfriend Nenette (Eve Hewson) comes to an abrupt end, however, when he’s framed for a gangland murder, presumably in retaliation for having kept some stolen jewels. Joining him on the shipboard gangplank to a life sentence in South America is millionaire currency counterfeiter Louis Dega (Malek of “Mr. Robot”). It is well-known that only money can make life where they’re headed bearable; and also that Dega is sure to be hiding some on his person. He’s soon more than willing to accept “Papi’s” offer of strong-arm protection in return for funding the latter’s eventual (if seemingly impossible) escape hopes.

Things only get worse upon arrival, as the duo endure various hardships even before they’re separated — having stopped Dega’s beating by a guard, Papillon is sentenced to an even more brutal two years’ isolation in silence (and, eventually, darkness). They’re reunited afterward to scheme a flight that comes to involve two other prisoners (Roland Moller and Joel Bassman) and, as in the 1973 edition, proves to be the film’s most exciting setpiece. Yet the tale still sprawls onward over years and further deprivations, encompassing a final stint on Devil’s Island and a decades-later coda.

Papillon was one of uber-cool McQueen’s most challenging roles, and best performances; Hoffman’s very physically mannered turn (complete with Little Tramp walk and Coke-bottle glasses) was neither. Still, their combined wattage made for a more poignant portrait of impossibly enduring male friendship than the talented young actors manage here. It’s not really the new cast’s fault — though Noer calls this a “love story,” he hasn’t made the sparse human connections possible in this telling as stirring as Schafner’s more monumental approach rendered them (in a project that French maestro Jean-Pierre Melville dreamt of directing at the time). Nonetheless, Hunnam (though better in his other 2017 historical epic, “Lost City of Z”) is impressive, particularly during the physical deterioration of the long isolation setpiece. Malek is solid, but Dega could have used more slyness or some other distinguishing characteristic.

There’s more graphic violence this time around, as well as more dialogue, sometimes of a cruder nature than necessary. (Neither speech or casting bother much to foster an atmosphere of retro Gallic culture in this English-language production, shot on Malta as well as in former Yugoslavian territories.) The physical production is aptly both gritty and handsome in Hagen Bogdanski’s cinematography, with strong contributions from production designer Tom Meyer and other principal collaborators. David Buckley contributes a low-key but effective score.

For those who remember the earlier film fondly, this new “Papillon” may feel unnecessary, lacking sufficient style and gravitas by comparison. But on its own terms, Noer’s adventure is ultimately a dramatic and dynamic-enough telling of an indelible fact-based story to connect with viewers. Now as then, they’ll need to be willing to serve a sentence — however greatly reduced from its inspiration — that involves considerable punishment en route to redemptive uplift.

Toronto Film Review: 'Papillon'

Reviewed at Toronto Film Festival (Special Presentations), Sept. 7, 2017. Running time: 133 MIN.

Production

(Serbia-Montenegro-Malta) A Papillon Movie LLC presentation of a Joey McFarland and Ram Bergman, Fishcorb Films production. (Sales: CAA, Los Angeles.) Producers: Joey McFarland, David Kopland, Ram Bergman, Roger Corbi. Executive producers: Martin Hellstern, Yan Fisher-Romanovsky, Joshua Maurer, Kevan Van Thompson, Christian Mercuri, Danny Dimbort, Terence, Chang, Samuel Hadida.

Crew

Director: Michael Noer. Screenplay: Aaron Guzikowski, based on the books "Papillon" and "Banco" by Henri Charrièere and the 1973 screenplay by Dalton Trumbo and Lorenzo Semple Jr. Camera (color, widescreen, HD): Hagen Bogdanski. Editors: John Axelrad, Lee Haugen. Music: David Buckley.

With

Charlie Hunnam, Rami Malek, Yorick Van Wageningen, Roland Moller, Tommy Flanagan, Eve Hewson, Joel Bassman, Michael Socha. (English dialogue)

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 9

Leave a Reply

9 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. It would be nice to have a decent review of THIS film and not the original. The remake’s s been made whether its needed or not so what is it actually like?

  2. Noel O'Neill says:

    I agree with BFrank. Why would a remake be considered? Like the Beatles wrote ” Take a sad song and make it better” but writers today are lazy money hungry parasites. They breed only onto a success and in their delusional way think they can improve what has already been proved and that is, an original is number one and a copy is number two and we all know number two is shit. They tried the same with The Blob” tried the same with the remake of ‘The Getaway” and it was bomb! It’s McQueen remake time The new “Magnificent Seven” another bomb. What actors today have lost is “star quality” McQueen definitely had it and so did Hoffman, these guys today simply don’t. We used to go to the movies to watch the best and were never disappointed because the acting was the best and the writing was the best. What we have today aren’t worth looking at and what writers have today is not worth listening to because they lack imagination and are driven by the almighty buck. These actors now in this new prison movie couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons! What’s next for the McQueen remake? “Junior Bonner? “The Hunter?…. And hey I got news for you guys. Henri Charriere was not the real Papillon….how about an original movie on that?

  3. BFrank says:

    I don’t agree with this comment “Why would a remake even be considered??? The original Papillon was directed by Franklin Schrieffer, the screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo, it starred Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen. It is a classic movie and IMO, it cannot be improved on.” No one said anything about improving the movie. Usually a remake is a way to tell a different side to the story. It’s all about perception.

  4. CJB says:

    Let’s see, first off, this reviewer might be better suited for short subjects. Something in keeping with his apparent attention span.
    That said, why would anyone bother to rush out and see a film that sounds remarkably, ok?
    I’ll be at home enjoying the admirable accomplishments of the first “Papillon”.

  5. lindsayreyes865 says:

    I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    gjhjjgh

    …..★★★◕◡◕◕◡◕◕◡◕Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  6. millerfilm says:

    Wow! Again remaking a classic that was perfect the first time. How about that?

    • Bill B. says:

      A classic film?! It wasn’t considered that when it was made and time hasn’t changed that. It’s a decent film though.

    • Why would a remake even be considered??? The original Papillon was directed by Franklin Schrieffer, the screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo, it starred Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen. It is a classic movie and IMO, it cannot be improved on.

More Film News from Variety

Loading