Locke

What Shannon said:

Watched this movie after seeing recommendations on Reddit, and because Tom Hardy can do no wrong in my eyes. Literally an hour and a half of Tom Hardy in a car monologuing and talking to unseen people via Bluetooth. Google gives too much of the plot away. It’s about a very ordinary man trying to maintain the moral high ground whilst keeping his whole life from unraveling in the process. I found it captivating.

Mike’s verdict:

When I read this recommendation, the first thing that came to mind was Phone Booth with Colin Farrell.  So not a great start, obviously.  Then I started considering the notion of an hour and a half of nothing but Tom Hardy in a car, and I was admittedly even less enthusiastic. Thankfully, Locke turned out to be somewhat better than it sounds on paper; though it definitely has significant flaws.

To start on a positive note, I did mostly enjoy discovering Ivan Locke as a character. While it took some effort to get passed Tom Hardy’s awkward attempt at a Welsh accent, I found Locke engaging enough to bear the weight of the film alone.

I do take issue with the suggestion that he is an ordinary man though.  In fact, Locke is interesting specifically because he is not an ordinary man. The way he plans every detail, recounts those details in precise language, and expects his employees to follow in kind, shows that maintaining strict control is a significant factor in his life.  We don’t get a chance to see it, but I would expect this need for control to be pain-point for those around him. It’s clear that during the course of his drive to London, every minute is a struggle to convince himself that he is actually in control. His mental state begins to unravel quickly as he realizes that the situation is beyond him.  The sudden out-bursts directed at the man in the rear-view mirror, and euphemistically referring to his own behaviour as ‘not like myself’ only reinforces the fact that Ivan is clearly troubled, even beyond the situation we are directly seeing.

I also take issue with the suggestion that Ivan was attempting to maintain anything close to a moral high ground.  Even if I were willing to grant him a pass for the one very specific moral failure that kicks off the entire plot (which I am not), there is still the problem of how Ivan treats his family, co-workers, company and mistress.  In the course of dealing with his situation, Ivan focuses on one person at the expense of his family and the careers of potentially hundreds of people who work for his company. He becomes fixated on mitigating the consequences of a singular personal problem, and in doing so manages to ignore the many greater (and more immediate) consequences of his actions.  Ivan does not even appear to be aware of his actions in terms of morality – he consistently avoids any emotional discussion by insisting that he needs ‘practical solutions for moving forward’, and he speaks to everyone through a sort of faux-humble condescension. His decision to travel to London comes directly from a deep-rooted fear of replicating the behaviour of his own father and that fear blinds him to the bigger picture.

Ivan’s deeply flawed character is actually what I like most about this film. If Ivan were an ordinary man, watching him drive for and hour and half would have been unbearable. And if he were a moral man, there would be no story at all.

Of course there is more to this film than Ivan Locke – the setting is extremely important. Or at least it should be.  As as device, I really like the one-set film. When it’s done right it can build terrific, frustrating tension right through an entire story – especially if the set feels small enough and has characters always on the verge of, but not quite able to, escape the ‘box’.  But this only works when two important conditions are met. First, there has to be a plausible explanation for the characters to be contained within the setting.  The audience needs to feel the same tension as their counterparts on screen, and that can only happen when the audience believes in the situation. Second, there need to be subtle teases throughout the film that the characters could escape the set.  If the audience never expects the characters to get out of the confined situation, or the characters are not even trying to get out, there won’t be any anticipation to work with.  Without these two elements, a one-set film is just convenient for filming; it doesn’t add to the audience’s experience.

Sadly, the plot for this film fails on both counts. The most aggravating problem is that the suggested time crunch Ivan is under just doesn’t make any sense. Birmingham to London is about a two hour drive and shortly before 9:00 pm Ivan claims to be less than an hour away from his destination.  Even if traffic was really bad and he didn’t arrive until 11:00 pm, he would still have at least three hours in London before needing to start back for Birmingham in order to be at work the following morning.  Considering Ivan’s attitude to work and the people in his life it’s unlikely that he would believe it necessary to stay in London for any longer than a few hours, especially given the importance of his being present for work the next morning.  His entire predicament is built on him wanting to be in London for a specific moment; he admits to having no greater attachment.  This effectively eliminates the most immediate cause of tension for the film because Ivan could have made the trip without most people ever even realizing he had gone anywhere.

The second element is failed as well simply because the film makes no effort to suggest that Ivan is almost at his destination. I never felt the tense anticipation that he was almost there or that circumstances were making it harder for him to continue his journey – because he was never actually rushing. The world around Ivan wants him to hurry, but he shrugs off that pressure easily – after all, ‘there are speed limits’.  On it’s own Ivan’s attitude is conducive to the plot and certainly works toward character development, but it limits the best part of a one-set film – tension.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the only issue I had with the plot.  How is one guy the single point of failure for pouring concrete?  Why does everything for the project fall apart despite Ivan’s ultra-precise record-keeping and management style?  The whole thing left me feeling that the writing was lazy. The audience is meant to be distracted entirely by Locke and not think too hard about how this all came about.  That said, I did enjoy the alignment of Ivan’s metaphorically ‘trapped’ story being told from within a relatively confined physical space. But if the plot had been more convincing, this alignment would have been more effective.

Finally, I’m a little bit torn on the ending. I liked the way things were left, but I wish it had actually happened a bit sooner. I didn’t feel the film was too long or that the story needed to end sooner. But I think the ending would have been more effective if the audience had been left with a little less closure.

And that’s really where this film fails the most.  It had all the opportunity to be truly anxious, but somehow didn’t quite get there.  It wasn’t boring, and the story was indeed captivating, but it just didn’t quite have enough tension.

6.5/10