Although I enjoyed Redbelt (2008), the movie could have been substantially better.
I enjoyed watching the movie because the philosophy that goes along with some of the martial arts has been a long-standing interest of mine. Ejiofor, who I’ve admired since seeing him in Dirty Pretty Things (2002), conveys that inner stability or stillness exceptionally well. Speaking of actors, Emily Mortimer is again wonderful in her secondary but pivotal role, Laura Black, the lawyer. The strongest dialogue is for these characters. The dialogue shows a serious understanding of the Buddhist (or whatever) philosophy underlying ju jitsu. To make a point, I’d say the best dialogue in the film is when the hyper, drug-addicted Laura meets the black-belt Mike (Ejiofor) in a restaurant and admits in a nervous way that she has a problem. He says, if I remember correctly, “How can I help you?” Brilliant dialogue delivered by actors who understand deeply the parts they are playing.
But Redbelt has lots of problems. Excellent critics give it mediocre ratings. James Berardinelli gives Redbelt only 2.5 out of 4, saying the plot is ridiculous, there are too many coincidences, and the scam simply wouldn’t work. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave it a respectable 3 out of 4, picking up on the theme of “understanding will defeat strength.” IMDb rated the film 7.0/10, a boringly average rating by thousands of film buffs. Also, a guy with 8 years training in Brazilian jiu jitsu (the focus of the film) said on IMDb that the cop’s suicide was dumb, the whole con thing was stupid, and the final out-of-ring fight would never have been allowed. Perspicacious, or what!?
David Mamet, screenwriter and director, says in the additional features to the movie that he does not ask other people about his scripts because his friends, whom he is most likely to ask, will not provide honest feedback because they want to remain his friends, and, furthermore, Mamet wants to be his own harshest critic. He is right as far as he goes. But anyone can use an outside perspective (or two). That’s what truly good book editors provide.
There are several avenues into what went wrong with this quite watchable movie: Ridiculous plot? Underdeveloped theme? Split between the social dynamics of the first part and the physical combat of the last part? I’ll chose theme. A man appears pure in isolation from the hurly-burly of the modern American commercial world, but within his admirable purity lies the seed of a problem. When he encounters the corruption of modern American capitalism, he maintains his purity and decency, but initially he has no effect on the corrupt practices. When this tension reaches a peak, he responds by quitting and heading for his studio, but then he realizes that he must use his purity and honour to challenge the corruption not just flee from it.
What an amazing theme compared to most pabulum out here! But the movie does not clearly develop this theme. First of all, it is not clear for most of the movie that the martial arts instructor is flawed. He seems a beacon of light. In retrospect, I see that the movie dropped some hints of the protagonist’s flaw. For one, when he begins Laura Black’s ju jitsu training by telling her she must leave the outside world out there, she says she has apparently come to the wrong place. I had put this down to her squirrelly behaviour, but I was probably supposed to see that she was right. Later, the martial arts master and the lawyer, Laura, battle the movie moguls ripping off his instructional methods and materials, so I thought it showed him taking action in the face of corruption. But in retrospect, I realize she was doing all the taking. All in all, such ambiguous events fail to make clear that our hero is flawed.
Near the end of Redbelt, our hero walks away from the big-money match when he learns it is rigged, he meets Laura in the hallway, they speak briefly, she slaps him, and he returns to the ring to reveal the fraud. Laura’s slap is the turning point of the movie. Significantly, Mamet says that Laura “explains” things to our flawed fighter. Unfortunately, we do not hear a word of this so-called explanation. It is Mamet’s head. Consequently, we are left guessing what is going on. You only find the answer if you watch the DVD extras and hear Mamet say Laura “explained” that an enlightened master cannot merely hide in his martial arts studio but must take his goodness into the world and fight corruption.
Redbelt’s theme is complex and mature and thought-provoking, but it is so poorly developed that viewers have little chance of appreciating it.