[RBadmin]

I found this 2013 British film to be brilliant and gripping.There is so much going on, I immediately watched it again, to make sure there weren’t any plot gaps, and there weren’t.

I will not give any spoilers but will quote from the IMDB website:

Ivan Locke, a dedicated family man and successful construction manager, receives a phone call on the eve of the biggest challenge of his career that sets in motion a series of events that threaten his carefully cultivated existence.

[ThomasReardon]

This movie has been in my queue, but due to Robert’s recommendation I watched it last night. Wow, such a simple premise, such simple execution — and it works! Some of the best dialog I’ve heard in a film. Thomas Hardy nails this character. I thought about putting some quotes here, but I don’t want to spoil the experience for anyone. What he says about concrete could have been penned by Rand.

[DouglasMayfield]

I don’t want to challenge the recommendations of this film. It is indeed a well crafted movie and Tom Hardy is excellent in the lead role. But I must say that I definitely did not enjoy it as much as Mrs. Reardon and Begley seemed to, based on their recommendations.

I found it somewhat naturalistic and also questioned Hardy’s character’s tenacious adherence to his chosen plan for dealing with a difficult situation.

I wondered about his solution to his problem, particularly about the consequences of his solution for his life. Did he really make the right choice? (One could argue that my being left with a question concerning his actions is an appropriate choice of story telling by the film makers.)

I don’t mind having seen the film but I did not personally find it emotionally satisfying.

[Carrie-Ann Biondi]

I loved this film, have seen it several times, and plan to re-watch it periodically.  Like Robert and Thomas, I won’t give away any spoilers in terms of plot.  

That being said, I can understand Douglas M.’s dissatisfaction and lingering question.  In order to defend the greatness of this film in light of that, I’ll just make some brief comments about it thematically and philosophically.  First, there is a vacillation between Kantian and Humean moral theory–a rift that can be healed (or could have been avoided) only by Objectivist (or virtue) ethics.  

Second, this dis-unity in the protagonist’s moral psychology emerges at the personal level.  At the professional level, he is as integrated as Howard Roark, and I agree with the comment above that some of his lines could have been penned by Rand.  Overall, then, he is most like Hank Rearden (prior to his becoming fully integrated in Atlas Shrugged) in his having mixed premises.

[DouglasMayfield]

Thanks for your comments. I do think they clarify what I was trying to get at. And, yes, professionally he is clearly integrated. I don’t think I’m giving anything away by saying that I found the nature of his choices and their consequences for his professional life troubling. It is a movie that I will continue to think about.

[Carrie-Ann Biondi]

I agree with you, Douglas, that the consequences of his choices for his professional life are troubling.  That underscores nicely how it is impossible to compartmentalize without suffering adverse effects.  A crack in the foundation is going to spread and lead to rifts that reverberate throughout one’s life. 

[StevenNemcek]

I watched this movie two nights ago using the Amazon Prime streaming service.

Spoilers Below.

This movie was unique. There was a single protagonist who is driving to London to see the birth of a child who resulted from an adulterous relationship. The film has only a single setting, the protagonist’s car, and at first I thought that film, as a medium, was inappropriate. Traditionally film is used to show a variety of environments and settings and this is what makes it powerful. However, upon reflection I realized that because the movie only had a single setting, the real power of this medium was in the actor’s expressions and tones. The focus shifted from the setting and environment to the actor himself, and I think Tom Hardy gave a remarkable and believable performance. 

The protagonist is a strong individual who is trying to make amends for his moral error, and he seemed to have three main values in his life: his family, his work as a concrete manager, and a third value which I call the “not being like his father who abandoned him at birth” value. The third is what is driving him throughout this movie, and while Mr. Mayfield and Ms. Biondi seem troubled with the fact that this value is what caused him to lose his family and his professional life, I thought that this was consistent with the character’s motives and was certainly the right value to pursue in the context of his life. While driving in the car the main character speaks madly to the ghost of his father who had abandoned him, and you can see the devastation and pain wrought by his father’s absence. This is why the protagonist chooses to give up everything NOT to be like his father, and I think it’s the right call. At one point when Howard Roark and Gail Wynand are talking on Gail’s boat, Roark says that he would die for Gail but woudn’t live for him. I see the protagonist as taking on a similar approach here; he’s willing to give up his professional life and potentially even his family if that means he at least makes an effort not to abandon his bastard son. 

The aspect of this movie that I didn’t like is that the film doesn’t resolve its own conflict, and at times borders on absurdism or nihilism. Indeed, at one point the protagonist references the absurdist French play “Waiting for Godot” and at another point he doesn’t take responsibility for his actions, when he says, while talking to his wife about his affair, “It [just] happened.” Well, no, Mr. Hardy, it didn’t just happen, you chose to cheat on your wife, and now there are consequences. 

The protagonist seems determined to solve this issue, but at the end he misses his bastard child’s birth, his wife has told him that he can’t return to the house, and he’s lost his job as the best concrete manager in Europe. The story ends more like a tragedy and is full of hopelessness rather than optimism and hope, and while I don’t necessarily think this is bad, it certainly was off-putting for this viewer.

I’d recommend the film but it moved me to sadness rather than joy, so know that before engaging.

[Author]

Posts