Gritty prison escape remake falls short
Rami Malek, left, and Charlie Hunnam star in Papillon.
Papillon is a story about the indefatigable determination of a man to be free. Equally, it’s a testament to the deplorable cruelty we are capable of inflicting on one another in the name of the law.
The new adaptation of the true story of former prisoner Henri Charrière, nicknamed Papillon because of a distinctive tattoo on his chest, does a merely serviceable job of capturing both elements. Unfortunately, it’s not nearly as compelling as the original 1973 version starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman.
Charlie Hunnam plays Papil- lon, a handsome, devil-maycare safecracker in 1931 Paris who finds himself framed for the murder of a pimp. It’s almost certain that the authorities, determined to be rid of a cocky crook, colluded with the criminals responsible for the crime and, as a result, he’s sent to a notorious prison in French Guiana.
During the long ocean voyage, he meets up and forms an alliance with Louis Degas (Rami Malek), a forger with the temerity to make his living faking government bonds. Papillon has the street smarts and muscle while Degas, bespectacled and puny, has the means to finance his escape.
Hunnam is a fine actor and tackles the role more than adequately. But director Michael Noer falls short in a number of ways, leaving a sense of missed opportunity.
French Guiana is a sweltering place and the prison itself a grim hellhole. But the palpable sense of dread and hopelessness the film seeks to portray falls short. In other words, the setting should be even more forbidding and the audience should be sweating right along with the inmates.
In terms of casting, Christopher Fairbank makes a fine villain in the all-too-brief role of Castili, the criminal kingpin who betrays Papillon. But Yorick van Wageningen as Warden Barrot, despite an adequate performance, is not nearly as menacing and cruel as he ought to be. This is a character we should truly despise.
The crucial relationship between Papillon and Degas is, again, adequate but not intriguing. It feels like the Danish director has not quite pushed his actors to their limits.
Papillon emerges from two years of solitary — much of it in darkness — showing the depredations of his confinement. But after another unsuccessful escape, he’s sentenced to five more.
The degree of suffering this has upon Papillon isn’t well reflected in Hunnam’s physical state — which is hard to pull off short of starving the actor — so it feels less than feel convincing.
The film captures moments of terrible cruelty, suspense and heartbreaking failure. But it doesn’t quite succeed in making Papillon a movie that sears itself into our memory — unlike the original. Better to watch the McQueen and Hoffman version, which does justice to this incredible story.