The Constant Gardener was my Netflix movie of the week, no doubt inspired by the fact that it was an Oscar-winning flick (Rachel Weisz won Best Supporting Actress). I had not watched this movie around the time of its release, but for no particular reason other than I had not cultivated any special interest in seeing it except for the fact that Oscar paid attention to it. I read the plot synopsis, though, and thought it might be an interesting movie.
It's based on a novel of the same name that I have not read. In fact, I rarely pick up politlcal thrillers, so it is doubtful that I would have read it anyway. Also, I have never seen any of Fernando Meirelles' previous films, including City of God (contrary to analogzombie's particular assertion, which I read in the review below mine). I had little to no information on what to expect this time around, which I don't mind. I like to expand my horizons as much as possible, and watching a film you have little to no interest in or information about is a good way to do that.
My immediate reaction upon viewing this movie, however, is numbness. I don't really feel anything. I'm not sure why.
Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a British diplomat working for the High Commission who prefers not to ruffle feathers. He is married to Tessa (Weisz), a woman with a "revolutionary spirit," who is quite passionate when she has adopted a cause. When Justin is assigned to go to Kenya, Tessa goes with him, and while Justin warns Tessa to not become too involved in the lives of the poverty-stricken villagers she meets, Tessa and a handsome native doctor, Arnold, take up the cause of exposing a pharmaceutical company's efforts to test a trial, dangerous, and, more often than not, fatal tuberculosis drug on Africans. Tessa is brutally murdered, however, and Justin, in his grief, adopts her cause, despite growing suspicions that Tessa was having an affair with Arnold. As Justin begins to dig deeper, looking for the culprit behind his wife's death, he also discovers a larger conspiracy he could never have begun to fathom. Oh, and the title comes from the fact that Justin is an avid gardener, to the point of cultivating his own garden in Africa. His garden is where he finds solace.
I think I feel numb because, again, this movie and, perhaps, the novel could not decide what it wanted to be. On the one hand, it was a love story, though the viewer spends a long time trying to guess at whether or not Tessa is having an affair, leaving that love story disconnected from engaging the viewer most of the time. On the other hand, it's a politlcal thriller, implicating high-ranking British officials in a financial and humanistic conspiracy. Actually, the film felt much like Syriana (George Clooney was Rachel's counterpart in 2005), except told from a different angle and about a different industry. On still another hand, the film felt like a documentary, painting the plight of Africa as a whole. In fact, Tessa's cousin Hamm, who enters the picture briefly at points of interest to provide plot-specific information to Justin, offers a long diatribe about why Africa is a "continent of guilt" for the rest of the world. In addition, Meirelles liberally used a handheld camera during many of the scenes in Kenya, which was interesting artistically but also distracting.
This film was not as complex as Syriana, though, because I think the love story was the heart of the movie, but it was still largely didactic. The performances were very good, and Rachel displayed a wide range of emotions in this role. In fact, her character was as multi-layered as the film itself, and she, no doubt, deserved her Oscar.
All in all, the film was well done - well written, well acted, well shot, but it was not a film that engaged me as much as I thought it would. Also, the pacing was slow and long as the plot simmered before it was brought to a boil. I just don't have a strong reaction to it either way, and sometimes that happens, but I'm at a loss for words here.
My rating for this film will be an 8 for minor flaws/very good, for much the same reasoning that I gave Sin City an 8 even though I didn't particularly care for the movie. It was well put together and highly original but just not my cup of tea, and I feel the same way about the Constant Gardener. Perhaps it was the frame of mind in which I watched it, but I just wasn't engaged; it, therefore, does not pass the test. City of God is on my queue somewhere, though, and I look forward to watching that one. Also, I think this film is worth watching; I just wish I had connected with it on a more constant basis.