“In the desert, no one remembers your name and there ain’t no one for to give you no pain…”
First Screening. Cinemark. Tightwad Tuesday. The first Guy Ritchie film I have seen on the big screen in quite a while. I took a look at his credits and although I appreciate Snatch and The Man from UNCLE as masterpieces, the truth is I'm not very impressed with his storytelling, although his technical expertise showcased in some films (Revolver, RocknRolla) is superb. I loved where he was going with The Gentlemen, but it failed to take it all the way into the station (despite stellar next-level performances out of Dockery and Farrell). The Covenant seems to be that rare feat that align's Ritchie's undeniably technical know-how with his ability to concentrate on narrative structure. Part of this, it must be admitted, is because The Covenant is a rather simple story. An Afghan translator saves his Sergeant's life who then returns to save him when the Americans fuck the translator over. That's it. This mean, in effect, Ritchie has an hour to build character and an hour to execute a plan, and he does it super well.
From the get-go, this is a Call of Duty film without mentioning anything remotely related to COD. I know. I've played that game. I'm Master Prestige on MW, MW2, BO, BOII, MW3, BOIII, Advanced Warfare (take that what you will), MP1 in Ghosts, and I'm so far up the MP chain on World At War that chances are if you played from 2016-2020 then you've played me. So when I say this film looks like a COD game, I know what I'm talking about. Such as:
1) The standard, opening rivalry of all war films in which we rotate around the squad and get to know people. Ritchie punctuates this with on screen credits, which happens naturally during game play when your center falls on another character (Tommy Matoto, Sub-machine Gunner).
2) Long, slow, steady cam shots that creep up through the actions of the enemy, following their movements as they go through the motions of being bad guys. The most famous one is the opener to the MW campaign, but it happens throughout MW2, MW3, and especially BO.
3) Gyllenhaal and Salim slowly walk down a trail at the bottom of a gully with an over the shoulder camera tracking above Gyllenhaal's left shoulder. Anyone who had played any COD game ever could have told you that eventually the trail would reveal a bad guy just around the corner.
4) Predictable but cool as shit FLIR from the point of view of the 30 mil operator above an AC-130 SPECTRE Gunship, which I credit for saving the lives of many of my fellow taxpayers in uniform.
5) Characters looking back and forth in dealing with trauma. This sounds a little vague and you could say typical of all films, but you'd have to see how the performances are engaged to understand what Ritchie is doing.
I've never seen a film so completely mirror a video game. Even films that take direct plot elements or copy entire characters (Tomb Raider, Resident Evil) fail to execute the not-so-subtle effects that Ritchie masters here. I was really surprised. On top of this, Ritchie is using compellingly long takes to establish points, and emphasizing emotional performances by soft 'popping' this close ups just a bit in, and rolling back almost immediately all in the same shot. The first time it happened I was wondering if it was a mistake. Then the second time it happened, on Dar Salim, I thought "holy shit, that is brilliant." I've seen soft popping in film before, but never used like this to emphasize a performance. For your reference a full pop can be found in fifty thousand instances on the show "Succession," in which the camera (for example) seems like it is across the room and then "pops" in to a full medium or full close up of an actor. Using it too much, like in that show, wears you down and makes you scream at the cinematographer to JUST LEAVE THE LENS ALONE. However, Ritchie's gradual and limited use of it here is masterful. It proves he knows what he likes, knows what he wants, and knows what he wants to show you in order to convey the point of the scene without antagonizing you. Shockingly good.
The crowning achievement of the film is Dar Salim, a European actor I am unfamiliar with, apparently born in Baghdad and fluent in several languages. He might be the Daniel Bruhl of the Middle East. I was constantly drawn to his screen presence and was completely convinced of his determination and layered characterization. In one amazing sequence, Gyllenhaal is having a breakdown after losing several of his friends in a fire fight. Salim conveys a series of expressions on his face that runs through his character's thinking process. It goes something like this:
1. He's a soldier. He's prepared for this.
2. He's having a moment. He'll get through it.
3. This is worse than I thought.
4. I should say something.
5. It would be inappropriate for me to say anything about his comrades.
6. I want to say something to him to make him feel better but that is absurd.
7. This must be the first time he's lost friends in combat.
8. This poor guy. He's lost almost as much as I have.
9. I don't want to embarrass him by trying to console him.
10. I'm not going to do anything he might interpret as patronizing.
11. I'm just not going to say anything.
All of that. In one take that may have been edited to show Gyllenhaal's state of mind. It was astounding. Salim must come to Hollywood. He deserves to be there.
I try to make it a point to not create criticism of actors, but Emily Beechum was clearly out of step with her surroundings. Her American accent was horrible and ultimately Ritchie should have done something about it. I don't think she closed the deal on the devoted and understanding partner. See Sienna Miller in American Sniper.