MovieChat Forums > The Constant Gardener (2005) Discussion > Overly simplistic politics + Implausible...

Overly simplistic politics + Implausible romance ruin it.

posted 14 years ago by MiloMindbender
14 replies | jump to latest

I watched this after listening to an interview with LeCarre on Democracy Now which impressed me (I had dismissed him with all the other pop writers whose books usually become films.) Otherwise I don't normally pay attention to Hollywood movies & this one ended up being just the same. In comparison to older movies political films of today just don't rate. They usually substitute soundtrack, quick-cut editing & plot twists to substitute for the lack of inventiveness in story-telling, mediocre at best acting & unimaginative cinematography.

What really bugged me about this one was the romance. Completely implausible (24 yr. old student & middle aged man have sex after a lecture & are off to Africa & married within the week?). Whereas the director could have developed the characters to make this somewhat more plausible, he instead wasted film time going back & forth in time with nostalgic flashbacks (that were repetitive & a bit too cloying).

Another thing that bugged me was the assertion (by LeCarre) that having a "Third World" director would give the film an African feel & really set it apart from Hollywood movies' usual portrayal of the continent. Didn't happen. While the movie may have had more scenes of natives in their habitat than the usual Hollywood film set in Africa, it was still a film focused on Westerners, the problems they create & their attempts to solve them heroically.

Finally the film presented everything in a too simplistic manner. Westerners dealing with their liberal/white guilt, the evil of the corporation seeking profit from the 3rd World, the culpability of governments in creating the problems faced by those in the countries they've colonized are all presented in a very pat & unsophisticated manner. Given how much time of the film was wasted on filming the landscape & the repeated flashbacks this was a major shortcoming.

[–] corolladisser 14 years ago

Just becaue you disagree with the politics,does not make it simplistic. Although I agree,i would have loved to have seen an African in a starring role.

[–] s-harris17 13 years ago

You may be right about the romance, but I have to disagree with you about the politics.

I studied International Relations as my major in college with a focus on African Politics. (I'm a white American female)

I would say you're argument is lacking in facts. Most African governments are extremely corrupt and have no true concrete order to them. Those governments are not democratic and they do not have the ability or the will to help their citizens. Pharmaceutical companies are making a killing in what they charge some of these countries for simple medicines and they are only out for profit. Yes it's "unsophisticated" because the politics and level of economics of the region are to be blunt unsophisticated. There are a lot of western governments and corporations trying to help these regions in Africa and it has nothing to do with "white guilt". It's all about humanity and wanting to help people in genuine need. But the western countries are also causing harm in the regions... an example of corrupt pharmaceutical companies over charging, blood diamonds, child labor, and pure exploitation of the people of Africa.

If you would educate yourself about the current issues in Africa you would see the movie's portrayal is not too far from the truth.

[–] PlatinumScreen 12 years ago

What really bugged me about this one was the romance. Completely implausible (24 yr. old student & middle aged man have sex after a lecture & are off to Africa & married within the week?). Whereas the director could have developed the characters to make this somewhat more plausible, he instead wasted film time going back & forth in time with nostalgic flashbacks (that were repetitive & a bit too cloying).

chriswn, exactly and so well said! i thought justin and tessa's land speed record from meeting to altar was totally out of character for justin and it took me out of the movie to the point i was thinking more about the absurdity of it than the events unfolding on screen.

[–] naxself 12 years ago

chriswn, exactly and so well said! i thought justin and tessa's land speed record from meeting to altar was totally out of character for justin and it took me out of the movie to the point i was thinking more about the absurdity of it than the events unfolding on screen.

So you (and the OP) expected the filmmakers to show the entire relationship? Did you want some establishing shots of an acceptable number of dates? Would it be okay if they were dating for 6 months? Or 12 months? The point of this? That the film constantly jumped back and forth through time, meaning that it showed that first fortuitous meeting, then jumped forward X months or X weeks to where he was assigned to the Africa desk.

As for the politics, I can only assume the OP dismisses every movie from Hollywood because every other movie made is so clearly superior and worthwhile. In a 2 hour movie, things get simplified, even in his/her beloved non-Hollywood movies. The question then becomes: does the movie prove its point? Yes, yes it does. Quite well, actually.

[–] ebright99 12 years ago

The OP is entitled to his opinion, but when I hear criticisms like his (stuff like "I usually avoid hollywood movies", "modern movies are too fast and don't have substance", etc) it always make me curious what they consider a good film to be.

If they say Constant Gardner sucks because they prefer Godard's 1970s and 80s radical films than that's one thing, but if they say Constant Gardner sucks because they prefer Kelly's Heros it's another.

[–] dwarol 12 years ago

Yes, it does seem implausible. But the movie shows Tessa as deeply insecure despite the beliefs that drove her to take extreme risks. At the lecture where she and Justin meet, she is shown to be embarrassed afterwards by her own behavior. It was Justin's reassuring her and telling her she was right to ask questions that begins her interest in him -- apparently that hadn't happened before. There were other points in the movie where Tessa says that only the work matters, as though she herself didn't. Justin stands by her despite that because he sees her worth as a person.

Justin is the rock in Tessa's life, the one point of stability and calm ("The Constant Gardener") to which she can always return when her own emotions and drive to protect the downtrodden push her to extremes. When Tessa says she kept her real motives from Justin to protect him, she was also protecting the one safe harbor in her life. Justin for his own part loves Tessa for being able to do what he cannot.

Throughout the first part of the movie, it appears that the marriage was a sham, that maybe Tessa was taking advantage of Justin just to get to Africa and get a certain status as a diplomatic wife where she could confront those in power. Justin, for his part, was just a middle-aged bachelor who took advantage of a pretty young woman. It's the view expressed in this thread. But the second half of the movie goes to great pains to show the strong love between them because each recognized that the other filled a deep need. That people question the plausibility of their romance indicates that maybe the director didn't do a good enough job (he had limited screen time for the romance because of the political story), but I think the clues are there nonetheless.

[–] PlatinumScreen 12 years ago

dwarol, impressive points that give fresh perspective and well-said. Thanks for your reply! A joy to read. :)

The cure for anything is salt water--sweat, tears, or the sea.
Isak Dinesen

[–] ama-lauder 12 years ago

I, for my part, simply thought they just didn't mention the time. I never thought their romance was short and unplausible, I just thought the director thrust the audience deep into the subject very early on, focusing on the important parts of the romance.
But you've beautifully explained the film. I loved it, especially Fiennes and Weisz' acting. They were wonderful! Even the actor interpreting Arnold I think was great in his role, even though for a short screentime.
Was also glad to see Archie Panjabi, who was quite a surprise in the movie, as I've followed her (more or less) in the Good Wife.

[–] memelay 12 years ago

I thought the speed of the romance was in order to cast doubt on Tessa's fidelity later in the movie.

[–] raveoddgrl 12 years ago

@ memelay--Exactly what I thought.

This is a torch song. Touch me and you'll burn.

[–] seejay_86 12 years ago

Even I felt she seduced him So that she can have him take her to Africa.
Judging from what she promised Sandy in exchange for the letter, You know she is manipulative.
At one point said "Without my work I am nothing". Maybe married life was secondary to her.

[–] jd-276 12 years ago

Finally the film presented everything in a too simplistic manner. Westerners dealing with their liberal/white guilt, the evil of the corporation seeking profit from the 3rd World, the culpability of governments in creating the problems faced by those in the countries they've colonized are all presented in a very pat & unsophisticated manner.

Then I'd suggest that this is too simplistic an interpretation.

For me, the film posed more questions than it answered. Didn't it make you wonder if this was happening somewhere in Africa?

I agree that the love story was over-emphasised but the film is as much about corruption as anything else. It's not just a figment of the author/screenwriter's imagination either. These sorts of things come out on a daily basis. That makes it spectacularly plausible.

"liberal/white guilt"?

Why shouldn't we feel guilty? Have you ever been to Africa (I mean the real Africa, not the resorts)?

[–] zachanscom 11 years ago

most movies suffer from political oversimplification, it's inherent in the format.

[–] zappalover 11 years ago

Agree with the OP. Popular stereotypes and simplified politics, cartoonish characters despite the fine acting and big budget.

Oh that magic feeling -- nowhere to go.