Tell No One (2006/2008) is a classic thriller, a fine French rendition of the novel (2001) by American crime writer Harlan Coben. It grabbed my attention even with the poster which went something like “Eight years ago, Alex’s wife was brutally murdered . . . today she sent him an e-mail.” I loved the complex plot. As some conversations on the internet reveal, some people have trouble following it. But all the information is there, you just have to stay alert and pay attention for two hours. The tension in the plot comes from an innocent man being squeezed from both sides. We know that Alex did not kill his wife, but the police have long suspected him and they have new evidence that sends them looking to convict him. At the same time, some ruthless thugs are after Alex for reasons that slowly become evident. He’s pretty much on his own, and if he does rendezvous with his wife, it may be the end of both of them. The intricate plot leads to a final confession which explains everything. This is a worn out way to wrap things up, but in keeping with the high quality of this movie, even the confession has a second version, an intelligent touch.
The acting is excellent. I suppose it is fair to say that only Francois Cluzet, as Alex, has a meaty role, a part that require real depth and complexity. He manages beautifully that difficult acting challenge of being reserved and manly yet very expressive. Not surprisingly he won a Cesar for Best Actor. But the other parts are acted with as much care. I like to be able to relax and know I will not be suddenly slapped in the face with an amateurish turn.
Although this is a thriller, the pace is not frantic. Unlike, say, the latest James Bond flic Quantum of Solace, the editing allows things to happen in what feels like a real-life pace. While the plot reminded me of The Fugitive, the pace reminded me of The Bourne Identity, as opposed to The (hyper) Bourne Ultimatum. This more natural pace allows you to follow the plot and even to think seriously about what might be going on.
The movie is not perfect. I can think of four shortcomings, not crucial but worth mentioning. First, there is one terrible edit where a man suddenly appears out of nowhere with a huge bouquet of flowers. I mention this because the editor won a Cesar for Best Editing. Just as the editor for The Departed won an Oscar and had two scenes completely out of sequence. Once awards enthusiasm gets going for a movie, there is apparently no stopping it. Second, the scene where Dr. Alex, the paediatrician, is teaching a pre-schooler his colours as the cops close in, is terrible because Alex is not teaching the kid anything, there is no expertise, no technique, just a bunch of nonsense. I hope that in the novel Alex actually teaches the kid something worthy of a child development professional because Harlan Coben’s wife is a paediatrician. Third, in a plot that is, as Ebert says, more than air tight, there is one element that could have been explained better: Why are the deadly thugs suddenly so interested in Alex? After the fact, you can sort of figure it out: The guy who hired the thugs was one of only two people who knew that Alex’s wife’s murder did not go as planned, and given his ubiquitous corrupt influence in the police department, he would have known why the police were suddenly expressing renewed interest in Alex. Neither of these is brought out, and thoughtful viewers may be wasting energy trying to figure it out for themselves. Finally, while the original music is fine, the songs layered onto the movie do not work. While Director Guillaume Canet loves some of my favourite musicians—Janis Joplin, Al Green, Curtis Mayfield—the soulful and English tunes work against the illusion that we are in France. At other times, the tunes (again in English) are coordinated with the cinematography in a way that reminds you of early rock videos. For example, during Jeff Buckley’s “Lilac Wine,” Alex takes another shot of hard liquor just as Jeff sings about drinking too much.
But these are quibbles about a movie that is a delight to watch and easy to love. Do you think Alex and his captivating wife get together in the end? And if they do, will it be a joyous reunion—will they run across the fields by their favourite lake and fall into each others arms? Or, maybe, given all that the two have been though, they have lost so much innocence that a Hollywood reunion is impossible? Maybe she walks timorously across the grass, uncertain about what she will meet? Maybe he turns his back and crouches down, overcome with sobs? Maybe they still have the enthusiastic love but will have to work diligently to rediscover the purity?