Reviews

Tell No One

Smartly written, cleverly constructed, and frantically paced, this is an old school thriller.


Tell No One

Subtitle: Ne le dis à personne
Director: Guillaume Canet
Cast: François Cluzet, Marie-Josée Croze, Marina Hands, Kristin Scott Thomas, Nathalie Baye
Studio: Les Productions du Trésor
Distributor: Music Box
MPAA rating: N/A
First date: 2007
US DVD Release Date: 2009-03-31
Website

Eventually, Tell No One tells you everything. Whether this flies right with you depends on whether you like your mysteries spelled out with airtight thoroughness, or whether you like them to remain, in the end, um… well, still a bit mysterious. Tell No One opts for the full disclosure route out of a certain formal necessity – thematically and stylistically, it never feels like the type of mystery that would have been well served by retaining any ambiguity in the end.

And yet, I can’t help but feel that the very deliberate, step by step, bullet pointed explanation that eats up the last 20-minutes of the film is a bit of a cheat, pointing to the weaknesses of a plot that skimps so much on workable clues that the audience could never hope to untangle it without aid. Sure, the increasingly bewildering series of confusing actions and narrative non sequiturs actually all fall tidily into place in the end - everything does fit together, any potential plot holes are neatly plugged up. But where’s the fun in having the film have to hold your hand to get there?

And that’s the problem – because for much of its run time, Tell No One is, a lot of fun. Smartly written, cleverly constructed, and frantically paced, it’s an old school thriller, calling to mind a cool Gallic mix of vintage Hitchcock (North by Northwest and Vertigo) and a dash of The Fugitive.

The film opens with a nighttime idyll, a young medical student, Alexandre Beck (Francois Cluzet) and his wife Margot (Marie-Josee Croze) enjoying a late night skinny dip in a country pond. They quarrel briefly over some incidental thing, and Margot swims to shore in a huff, vanishing into the bushes. We hear a scream, and a dull thud. Alexandre tries to make it back to the shore, but before he gets anywhere he is hit in the face with a baseball bat, falling backward into the water and blackness.

The film reawakens eight years later, Alexandre now a successful doctor, and widower. Although initially a suspect himself, he was eventually cleared when his wife’s death was attributed, somewhat spuriously, to a notorious French serial killer, and the case is presumably now closed. But nagging questions have always remained. Like, how and why did all autopsy photographs of Margot go missing? Or how did Alexandre, who was knocked into a three day coma by the attack, get out of the water and back on to the dock?

So, when one day Alexandre receives a mysterious e-mail linking to a video recording of someone who looks an awful lot like Margot, he’s obviously thrown a bit for a loop, and the uncertainties about her murder are dredged back up and stirred. Is this some sort of cruel, malicious hoax? Or is his wife actually alive, and trying to get back in touch with him? The coincidental discovery of two bodies buried near the spot where his wife was murdered, leads the cops to reopen the case entirely, throwing suspicion back on Alexandre, and Tell No One is off and running (usually quite literally).

It would obviously be a breach of professional responsibility to reveal too much, or anything really, of what follows from there. The action begins to unspool at an ever accelerating rate, the confusion keeping pace. The film does not give its hero, or us, a lot of time to think, continuously throwing new twists in our path.

Director Guillaume Canet deploys just about every trick in the book to keep things cooking – mysterious lock boxes containing presumably buried secrets; mysterious, murderous thugs harassing and pursuing our hero; crusty old detectives who believe in the hero’s innocence even if the evidence says otherwise; a subplot involving steeple chase (?! – don’t worry, it makes sense in the end); Hitchockian doubling of female characters.

The film would almost feel like a hollow genre exercise, a sort of mystery/thriller connect-the-dots coloring book, if it all weren’t handled with such enthusiastic deftness and intelligence. It’s a smart film that is self-aware without ever being “wink wink” about it – its lack of irony is refreshing, and the key to its success for most of its run time. Though part homage to Hitchcockian traditions and conventions, it also makes a strong case to stand as a worthy inheritor of those traditions and conventions, sort of in the same vein as LA Confidential stands to noir detective films of the ‘40s and ‘50s.

I guess my slight disappointment with the end, then, is that Tell No One doesn’t have the confidence to trust in the intelligence of its audience. But then, I think, the collection of clues, events and actions as presented are almost impossible to piece together into a coherent whole without some directorial assistance. The film does such a good job of keeping its hero – and we the audience – in the dark the entire time, forever dangling out a carrot that distracts him, and us, from any other clues that may or may not be hiding in plain sight, that I doubt any other option is available.

And to its credit, the epic length, long winded explanation - when it finally drops - is not so much a function of “chatty villain syndrome”, but is rather a logical progression of the movement of the rest of the film. It is airtight and almost flawless, and if it feels a bit of a cheat to us, it surely doesn’t to Alexandre, who only wants some sort of closure, some sort of assurance that everything he has endured has at least some sort of reason behind it.

Tell No One is pretty light on extra features. A collection of deleted scenes, running about 35 minutes, are mostly extensions of action in the movie, filling in some of the secondary and tertiary action which was rightly omitted from the film in the first place. Their inclusion would only have padded out an already robust 120-minute run time, and they don’t actually offer anything to help the viewer solve the film on his/her own. The “outtakes” are five minutes of line goofs and bloopers, which are of minimal interest.

6

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image