Movie review: The Life of David Gale by Alan Parker

Directed by Alan Parker
Release date: 2003
Screenplay: Charles Randolph
Cast: Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet, Laura Linney, Gabriel Mann, Matt Craven, Rhona Mitra

The Life of David Gale (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Summary:

"The Life of David Gale" tells the story of a professor of philosophy and a famous opponent of capital punishment who, in what he must find an absurdly ironic development, finds himself on death row in Texas, charged with the rape and murder of Constance Harraway (Laura Linney), a woman who was not only his fellow activist but also one of his few real friends. The whole plot revolves about David’s brilliant academic career and his swift, steep fall, right into the arms of degrading unemployment, alcoholism and despair, with a divorce and even more painful estrangement from his little son as seasoning.

While in prison, David Gale, understandably a very bitter man who's lost literally everything, decides to tell his version of events and to protest his innocence to a reporter named Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet), summoned especially to Texas. They are given a limited amount of time, two hours every day in a short, 72-hour period right before the impending execution. Very soon – apparently during the first session- Bitsey becomes more or less convinced of David's innocence. She is joined in her investigation by her eager intern Zack (Gabriel Mann), and they become aware that: a) Gale’s attorney is a shifty fellow who won’t lift his little finger if he doesn’t have to and, it seems, he doesn’t care b) they are being followed everywhere in a pickup truck by a gaunt-faced man in a cowboy hat, who is either a right-wing death-penalty supporter who really killed the victim and framed David or somebody sinister else. Will they manage to prevent the worst – a judicial murder of an innocent – against all odds?

My impressions:

This movie was recommended to me by Rameau (thank you!) and its online blurbs read really well: an interesting plot about a complex man with a cause, an important cause to boot, a film starring plenty of great actors and actresses and set in Texas (yeeehaaaw!). What could go wrong? Unfortunately quite a lot but let’s start with the positives.

I really liked David Gale as portrayed by Kevin Spacey. He was a truly three-dimensional character, a man with many vices and demons, a brilliant scholar, very human and never ashamed to admit it, cruelly punished for his own cleverness. Spacey has exactly the right amount of understated earnestness to make such a character work effectively; actually it seemed that the role was too easy for him, especially if you remember his other creations. I believe this kind of role he could play in his sleep. Spacey's finely honed performance was coupled with those of Kate Winslet and Gabriel Mann who did their bits well – no fireworks but good, believable performances nevertheless.

The movie is set in Texas, a delightful location as it is the very US state which, in a good year, all by itself, carries out almost half of the executions in America. Death Row in Texas is like a machine. It’s no longer about human life and sanctity thereof, it’s about efficiency of getting rid of those pesky criminals. Faced with such a soulless, bureaucratic machine , Gale knows very well he has just a few days to prove his innocence before he's sent for some short, sharp, shock treatment in the big, uncomfortable chair. And here all my problems began. Told in flashback, "The Life of David Gale" started piling up more and more clicheed red herrings than a fishmonger. As the plot twists are ironed out for the revelatory finale, it's clear that there's actually a lot less to this than meets the eye. The man in the cowboy hat – why did they need him to behave in such an outrageous way? It was beyond silly as it screamed 'guilty' from a great distance. And that lawyer? He screamed “guilty” in every frame as well and guess what? He was! (not a big spoiler, really). Where is the subtlety and subterfuge? As though Parker felt the film's point was in danger of being missed, he spelled it out for us at critical moments with the use of text. Words such as 'Guilty', 'Innocent', 'Lust' 'Power' and 'Desire' flash up on screen, serving little purpose other than take you out of the drama and remind you that you're in the hands of a calculating director.

Finally my biggest complaint. I am sure the filmmakers believe their film is against the death penalty but, contrary to them, I believe it supports it. In my eyes the ending discredited the opponents of that penalty as unprincipled fraudsters, shifty and ruthless like (or even more than) your average politician or lawyer. In other words (spoiler, highlight to read) the final revelation on the videotape registered during the so-called murder, when we see it was in fact a suicide, was to me like a punch in the gut. Surely David Gale knew that Bitsey Bloom couldn't keep it private without violating the ethics of journalism and sacrificing probably the biggest scoop of her career so it served no functional purpose except to give a cheap thrill to the audience and make you doubt everything, the noble 'no-death-penalty' cause included. If you are against the killing you are not supposed to kill yourself or force anybody else to kill - it sounds like a logical premise, right? I was left stupefied that somebody as intelligent as David and his fellow activists had ever agreed with such a plan. Congratulations on shooting your cause movie in the leg, Mr. Parker because no, with such an ending I don't think it was deliberate.

Final verdict:

I would call this movie an excellent example of lost opportunities - an unconvincing, dishonest and leaden political message drama that takes a stand against capital punishishment, but does its cause more harm than good . It could have been something epic and it is merely average. What a pity. Still I do not regret having watched it.

TV Series Discussion: House of Cards season one (chapters 1-13)

A short synopsis and the cast list (from Wikipedia) so everybody knows what exactly we are talking about:

House of Cards is an American political drama series developed and produced by Beau Willimon. It is an adaptation of a previous BBC miniseries of the same name which is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. The entire first season premiered on February 1, 2013, on the streaming service Netflix.

Main cast:

Kevin Spacey as U.S. Representative Francis "Frank" J. Underwood, a graduate of the fictional school "The Sentinel" (which is made to strongly resemble the real life school The Citadel, a military college) and Harvard Law School, a Democrat from South Carolina's 5th congressional district and the House Majority Whip. He often breaks the fourth wall to speak directly to the viewer. His name is derived from The Right Honourable Francis Urquhart MP, the protagonist of the BBC version and the novel version of House of Cards.

Robin Wright as Claire Underwood, Francis' wife. She runs the Clean Water Initiative, a non-profit that often gets mixed up in Frank's political scheming.

Kate Mara as Zoe Barnes, a reporter for The Washington Herald (later Slugline). Desperate for a break, she makes a deal with Frank for insider information.

Corey Stoll as U.S. Representative Peter Russo, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district. Russo becomes loyal to Underwood after Underwood threatens to expose his alcohol and drug addiction.

Michael Kelly as Doug Stamper, Underwood's Chief of Staff, abettor and confidant.

Ana: Rameau, you introduced me to this series - where and when did you hear about it? What made you watch it?

Rameau: Rachel Maddow show. It was some time last year when I was watching the show for the 2012 election shenanigans and the commentary, when she mentioned Kevin Spacey’s remake of the 1990 British miniseries House of Cards coming out in early 2013. A curious being that I am, I researched the subject, found the books, and the original miniseries. Then I waited until the remake had come out and I waited a bit longer.

Ana: I see, so it wasn’t completely a spur-of-the-moment decision, like: ‘hey, there’s a new series about high -profile Washington politicians, let’s watch it!’ Because I have to admit I would never started the series if not for two things: Kevin Spacey and your recommendation. Now I think I definitely owe Rachel Maddow as well.

Who was your favourite character (and why Frank Underwood ;p) ?

Rameau: No, it wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment decision but the decision to watch the original, four part miniseries was. And you know me so well. I think I loved Frank Underwood because of how Kevin Spacey portrayed him. I loved his relationship with his wife—although I have my gripes too—and I loved the history they created for him. The character and the show reminded me of American Beauty in many ways and I can’t say that didn’t help to endear me to the character.

He is a kind of anti-hero though - a man who manipulates as he breathes and also somebody who perhaps never knew the meaning of the word ‘altruism’.

I’d go further than that. I’d say he’s closer to a villain than an anti-hero. He’s unapologetic and he gets what he wants and he wants power.

Still he can be your best bosom buddy - if it fits his goals at the moment.

Which would be villainous behaviour straight out of a Machiavellian handbook for politicians ;)

I was surprised how close and distant at the same time Frank was to Claire. On the one hand - sheesh, they say each other such things as the names of their extramarital interests, that was impressive. Nobody makes a row, nobody throws a fit of jealousy. On the other hand...when Claire needs Frank the most he just balks at helping her because it is not supporting his main objective. What do you think?

That’s the part I didn’t like of this incarnation of the show. In the BBC version it felt like Francis Urquhart’s wife was the brains behind the operation and he her hands, the puppet whose strings she pulled. Of course the length of that show didn’t allow them to develop her character fully and this could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I really wanted to see Claire being the kind of wife who truly is the master of the operation.

A Lady Macbeth, right?

Right. Instead they chose to develop her character in a different direction that takes her away from Frank and sets their desires and goals in a clashing course. In my version the non-profit would have been nothing more than a hobby for Claire and a convenient way to make connections outside the Congress.

How about you? What would you have changed about the show?

I would change Zoe Barnes. It really pissed me off that the one and only thinking female character (and I am speaking about the main cast here) was made into a journalistic prostitute. I did hope that her relationship with Frank would stay as it began. As it was, it seems a woman can make a career only if she has a man to support her (speaking in the most general terms).

I agree. It did stay the way it began in the BBC series but in that, Mattie Storin’s fate was quite different.

Then that boyfriend of hers was added and it made me even more confused - the series sometimes tended too much towards emotionally challenged YA drama.

It made me think they wanted to keep Kate Mara on the show but didn’t know what to do with her character. Probably because of what happened to Mattie.

What do you think of the little romance of Doug and that second prostitute, the one who doomed Russo? I did hope for something more here and got...nothing.

I hope they take it slow. I want to see it evolve, especially since she’s going to figure out what happened to Russo, but at the same time I’m afraid where they’ll take it next.

Do you think Frank will really become that vice-president or will his prize slip through his fingers again?

I hope he does. In the BBC series Urguhart did become the Prime Minister and I can’t really see what good it would do for Spacey and friends to repeat season one with having Frank start from scratch again. No. Underwood needs to rise and he needs to rise to the top before he falls.

If he falls.

I quite agree - failing again would bring a sense of anticlimax and it might be boring. Oh...we haven’t even touched the dialogue Frank leads with the viewer - a very personal dialogue. How did you feel about it?

I’m not a fan, but I understand why it’s done. He’s a villain and he needs to explain himself to the viewer because he never ever gets to explain all his motivations to anyone else. Which, wouldn’t be a problem had the writers handled his relationship with Claire differently.

If it showed anything clearly, it was the fact that Frank didn’t trust completely even his beloved prize wife. If you play Machiavelli, you are playing a game of solitaire.

True enough. I would have still preferred a power duo. Do you know what I find disappointing? The inescapable downfall after Claire finds out what really happened to Peter Russo.

You mean you are sure she will leave Frank if/when she finds out the truth? I don’t know. Perhaps. Still she seems to be such a cold-blooded, selfish woman. He might hold her on a very short leash.

No. Not leave him, but become utterly disillusioned, again, and start actively working against him. The more I think of this the more I think it goes against her characterisation. They’re going to try to turn her into a goody two-shoes.

Claire is definitely too weak to confront Frank and win. Another series without a single strong woman.

So are you in for the second season?

Right now I would say yes, I am. But give me a year and ask again. How about you?

It is a cautious yes as well. I like Kevin Spacey enough to give him a chance to say something more about those ugly politicians I love to hate. Perhaps it will pay off.