Movies on gangsters or criminals who are or overcome two hours and a half: three deliveries of The Godfather, Scarface, One of ours; and now, A prophet (A prophète, 2009). His director, Jacques Audiard, will find well-taken size length; the spectator, nevertheless, goes out of the movies with the sensation that a too long menu has served itself.
Argumentalmente, A prophet would be more next to Scarface than to The Godfather: we are not before the big history of a (mafia) familiar saga but before the ascent, dividing of anything, of a criminal. Audiard has wanted to make very clear that his Malik small Djebena has to do with Tony Montana. He did not want, he has said, a neurotic dice to the excess (The Djebena starts with a profile more than under). Returning to the question of the length, if in The Godfather it was more that justified, Scarface did not seem needed from a few hours of fork in the assembly room either.
On A prophet, on the other hand, there meets the sensation that to Audiard him the hand has gone away. He wants to be meticulous, and it is one of the strong points of the movie, in the story of how his hero is climbing slowly and painfully, climbing in the nutritive chain by means of sticks, murders and proper tasks of a servant. If in some aspect it had to be especially careful, it was precisely in that one. Hardly the spectator might have excused to him that, to the purest style of the mediocre movies, was settling the transformation of sausage of half a hair in jefecillo of the underworld in a quarter of an hour, after two fights, a fistful of phrases and a tragic tune sounding of fund while there are chained insipid scenes where there is narrated the bad thing that passes in the jail.
Audiard does not commit this sin. His approach to the real prison world is haughty. It denounces excellent papers. Observers are believable, the prisoners are believable, the clans (the Corsican ones, the Arabs) are believable. The realism is powerful, aggressive (the first execution, without going further). But yes Audiard commits another sin: his will to document everything to the detail lengthens tremendously the movie. Synthesis capacity is missing in some point, although it has the virtue of making complicated foreseeing where it might have put the fork. Set already completing the list of defects, the sleep and paranoias that assault the protagonist take a fancy highly redundant. He wants Audiard to avoid the purity of the genre and to contribute poetical strokes, but it is not difficult to imagine the tape without these scenes, and even improving.
Warned the negative points, repeating belongs to justice that both the treatment of the prison and the evolution of The Djebena are outstanding. Supported, there is not less true, for the excellent work of the principal actor, till now unknown Tahar Rahim, who gives to Audiard his that for that he was asking: nothing of excesses, nothing of grimaces, nothing of sinking the face in a coca mountain. Rahim is perfect at all times: the same receiving a drubbing to steal from him his sneakers that suffering before his first murder, assuming his new gallons and experiencing the indescribable sensation of feeling free again. Niels Arestrup as the Corsican boss César Luciani handles a record much more expansive that becomes incarnate with identical brightness.
In all the awards, and they have been great, hoarded by A prophet the applause is detected to the effort to have penetrated in a world that is not new, that of the jail like microcosm, and to there be devoid one of the topics and common places which the movies has usually incurred, especially the American. The same way, having come out the genre to serve what, finally, is only another history of personal overcoming. The Djebena will never discover the remedy against the cancer nor will score the definitive goal in the final of the World cup, but a status has been worked departing from a situation that could not be less profitable. There is no this praise to the gangster that they have wanted to see any in The Godfather, but a meticulous portrait of the success of the pariah. A pity that, in return, 155 minutes have been necessary.
Verdict: 7.
The best thing: Tahar Rahim.
The worst thing: Excessive length.
To send to Wiggle me
Tweet this!