Spotlight
Spotlight Date: 29-September-02
Spoiler Rating: Medium
The Great Train Robbery (1979)
As you already know if you read my "Road to Perdition" review, I am sick of Hollywood foisting an endless succession of criminals upon its public and assuming that we will (and should) find their actions interesting, exciting, and even admirable. This is not just because I have rather rigid moral standards; it's also because you can't turn on the TV or trot into a cineplex without running into thugs, felons, and mobsters, which has resulted in underworld overkill; and whatever interest such characters might have originally possessed has long since been used up. However, this isn't to say that I can never enjoy a crime story again. I might, for example, appreciate a movie that features an unusual thief who uses brain more than brawn, or that tells a story based in fact and enhanced by a historical setting and situation. That is to say, I might have really liked Michael Crichton's "The Great Train Robbery," which is based on the real-life story of a mid-nineteenth century British felon who attempted an astonishing score without the aid of explosives, guns, or computer gadgetry. Unfortunately, however, the film is missing one last ingredient necessary to a good yarn: in its infatuation with the mechanics of the crime, it fails to devote enough time to fleshing out the people who commit it, which precludes any lasting interest in the deed as a whole. (This is a bit surprising, considering that Crichton is, first and foremost, a novelist, and that he adapted and directed "The Great Train Robbery" from his own book.)
Sean Connery stars as Edward Pierce, a gentleman scoundrel who masterminds the "impossible" theft of a vast amount of gold en route from London to the Crimean War. Pierce is assisted by his mistress, Miriam (Lesley-Anne Down), and a nimble-fingered pickpocket and key forger named Agar (Donald Sutherland), as well as a few other shady characters enlisted along the way. Pierce and his accomplices must call on intelligence, skill, and daring to work through a number of obstacles standing between them and success. First, they have to acquire copies of the four keys needed to open the train safe. (The first key is guarded by the owner of the bank from which the gold is withdrawn; the second is kept by the randy bank manager; and the third and fourth are locked in a cupboard in a guarded office at the railroad station.) Then, they have to avoid suspicion while boarding the train on the day appointed for the gold transfer and infiltrate the locked car containing the safe. Finally, they must get the gold off of the moving train, undetected, and make their getaway. It's an interesting challenge and a good basis for a story, but the how makes up the meat of the matter, with very little consideration of the who, and therefore the why.
Connery, of course, was born to play a sexy rogue, and he manages to find the edge to the character of Pierce (which, I hope, was played up in Crichton's novel). He's a bit sociopathic, impervious to standard emotions like love, jealousy, and fear, and interested only in money. Miriam, on the other hand, seems a little deeper; she wants more from Pierce than just wealth and excitement. A potentially delicious subplot is hinted just beneath the surface but is never allowed to develop: how Pierce is able to attract his lover (and others) with a mixture of charisma, arrogance, and aloofness, and how Miriam struggles to hold onto his attention --- a goal almost as impossible as the Crimean gold, if not more so. Unfortunately, this relationship is not given much screen time, even though it represents the only noteworthy connection of characters in the whole film. For people embroiled in a dangerous business requiring a large amount of discretion and trust, Pierce and his gang reveal almost nothing of themselves to each other and have a surprising lack of interaction. The biggest problem is Agar, who is given absolutely no personality by either Crichton or Sutherland; the remaining members of the gang are flimsily sketched and mostly ignored. I understand that an action film should focus on the action, but having undefined characters makes the story feel inaccurate and incomplete. A few well scripted bits of dialogue could have gone a long way toward adding a layer of complexity to the tale. For example, if Pierce and Agar had come together in some particular fashion --- as suspicious rivals, bawdy chums, or polar opposites --- this would have infused the story with an element of personal intrigue while allowing greater insight into the characters of both leading men.
I couldn't help but think about the recent remake of "Ocean's 11" while watching "The Great Train Robbery," because I felt that both crime capers had the makings of really good movies but didn't live up to their potential. I cannot deny that it's interesting to ponder how big heists could be pulled off, but what really adds zip to such a tale is the consideration of the ingenuity and boldness, the avarice and motivation of the people who would attempt such an enterprise. Without understanding exactly whom you're watching, you cannot fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and what sets them apart from the average criminal crowd.
Copyright © 2002 The Jujube (M. I. Kim). All rights reserved.
