by Frank Calvillo
If In the Heart of the Sea has seemed like it’s taken the long way towards getting up on movie screens, it’s because it has. When Ron Howard’s latest was moved from its planned early spring 2015 release to late (awards-friendly) December, interest was definitely aroused with regard to the amount of belief put on the film. After watching In the Heart of the Sea, however, the marketing people would have been wise to stick with their initial instincts.
The film opens on Herman Melville (Ben Whishaw) as he travels to visit a man named Tom Nickerson (Brendan Gleeson), the last remaining survivor of a ship known as the S.S. Essex. After much persuasion, Nickerson relays the story of the ship’s fateful voyage led by Captain George Pollard (Benjamin Walker) and First Mate Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth). Originally out to collect whale oil for profit, the ship and crew soon find themselves coming face to face with a gigantic whale, which leaves them shipwrecked and stranded in the middle of the ocean where they are forced to fend for themselves until they are rescued.
Let’s get this right out of the way. There’s nothing wrong whatsoever with In the Heart of the Sea. Howard and company have crafted a film which manages to hit all the right notes. Every possible trope is there, every character is painted as their own person, and every plot point is resolved by the film’s end. From start to finish, In the Heart of the Sea is a film which is well-paced and slickly made that balances heart pounding moments alongside historical storytelling.
In spite of this however, there’s something about it which remains deeply unsatisfying. As much as the film tries to work as a powerful cinematic experience, it never quite reaches that status. Maybe its the fact that this feels like a film we’ve seen before. Yes, the characters are compelling, but their stories aren’t. There’s simply nothing new here for audiences to chew on. While Hemsworth’s star power may be enough of a draw for a solid female audience, there’s not enough of a novel pull for most anyone else to want to spend two hours at sea with this script.
Though it pains me to say it, In the Heart of the Sea represents an undeniable lull in Howard’s career. I’m not saying that the director has lost his passion or dedication to projects, but watching his latest film made me feel that his approach to telling a story has become a tad bit comfortable. True, his last two films (Rush, The Dilemma) both contained plenty of bright spots and moments which were real and said plenty about the subject matter. Yet you would have to look back to 2008’s excellent Frost/Nixon for the last time Howard managed to set off the kind of cinematic fireworks he’s been known for.
As I said before, In the Heart of the Sea does the best it can with what it’s got, no matter how familiar it all may seem. In spite of its well-worn trappings, a couple of elements do manage to stand out on their own. First off, the visuals, from the cinematography to the special effects, deliver in such generous amounts. If nothing else, the film is one of year’s biggest delights for the eyes. Meanwhile, the film’s framing device between Melville and Nickerson is incredibly involving, with the dialogue and ideas exchanged between these two distinct and different men containing the same sort of magnetic energy which made Howard’s Frost/Nixon so watchable.
Performances within In the Heart of the Sea seem to echo the film itself. Each member of the cast (which also includes Cillian Murphy and Tom Hollander as Second Mate and young Tom Nickerson, respectively) brings the right amount of determination and despair to his role and never disappoints with the standouts once again being Whishaw and Gleeson.
Maybe if this were 1998, In the Heart of the Sea would seem like the more pulsating, devastating true tale of how one of the greatest literary works in existence came to be. However, with today’s audiences switching between tentpole blockbusters and introspective character pieces, it seems that there doesn’t seem to be much of a place left for a film like Howard’s. Still, I’m not totally convinced the film itself is an artifact. It simply exists in the wrong time.
