The best thing I can say about 'Civic Duty' is that it makes me want to move out to Hollyland and get a job. They obviously need help.
The problem with this film isn't just that it's not a good film (though, truly, it isn't very good); its problem is that it should probably never have been made. Here's why: The basic conflict in this kind of movie, by definition, is between paranoia and reality. Krause's character, however, is set up to be obviously paranoid. In any suspense thriller, a filmmaker must work *against* expectations. And in a *really* good suspense thriller, the filmmaker should even work against the expectation that he or she will be working against expectation. And in a truly *exceptional* film of this kind, you can repeat this process and flip reality several times.
'Civic Duty' takes no such steps. Terry is suspicious about his neighbor from the first time he sees him, though for no real reason except overexposure to news media. There is very little effort (indeed, perhaps none at all) made to make the viewer suspect that perhaps the neighbor is, in fact, nefarious. We're simply waiting around to see how badly Krause will unravel.
But that *still* doesn't address the heart of this movie's problem, which is that in the overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry, it would be all but impossible to make a movie in which a character is paranoid about a mysterious Middle Eastern neighbor, only to find that said neighbor *is* in fact a "terrorist." It would be somewhat gutsy film-making, in fact, to make such a movie. And since Terry is riddled with paranoia, the filmmakers spoon-feeding us with several minutes of news footage and Bushspeak before the movie even gets underway, the movie simply has nowhere to go.
And that's what it does. It goes nowhere.
It would have worked better if it had been done the opposite way. Perhaps Terry could have a long-time friend or co-worker who's Middle Eastern. Perhaps a third party, an FBI agent or even his wife, could voice suspicions. Terry would defend his friend right to the end, only to end up going down in flames with him when the truth was finally revealed. That would have at least loaned a touch of dramatic irony.
Or perhaps the FBI agent, or lead investigating character, could have himself been Middle Eastern, and the film could have shown that character's inner struggle: not wanting to believe that this hard-working master's candidate had something to hide vs. doing his duty to protect the American public, frustrated by always being required to investigate people of his own ethnic background. Of course, that would require the absence of Richard Schiff, who in my opinion was the movie's only saving grace (man, do I miss 'The West Wing').
Here's an even better scenario. Terry could have come to his senses about his paranoia toward the end of the second act. Amidst his embarrassment, he could have become reluctant friends with Gabe. Then he could discover that, not Gabe himself, but Gabe's associates at the copy shop were part of a terrorist cell and were 'using' Gabe as an unwitting 'mule' (or whatever). This would then provide motivation for Terry to again take action. His reluctance to end up looking foolish again would be outweighed by a sense of duty (nay, 'civic' duty) to Gabe, whom he is now motivated to protect since he put him through such an ordeal to begin with. Of course, Gabe would be reluctant to believe this. And perhaps the audience would again suspect that Gabe himself is knowingly involved. But in the end, it would be Gabe who would give his life to destroy the cell, thereby becoming a hero and doing his 'civic duty.'
And there you have it: You could have had a good movie, and still been politically correct. Hell, the 'bad guys' don't even have to end up being Middle Eastern. They could have been pale white corporate crooks, perhaps selling information or materials to "terrorists" who themselves are never seen. The only Middle Easterner in the film would turn out to be the hero. Then you could have your movie and still be *completely* politically correct.
But as it stands, 'Civic Duty' goes exactly where you think it's going to go the moment you see the photo on the DVD box and read the description. Because it has nowhere else to go.
Which brings me back to my original point: Who the heck greenlights such projects?? How can you set out to make a suspense thriller when the outcome, for largely political reasons, is practically a foregone conclusion. I'm really not trying to advance my own ideology here. I'm just demonstrating how politics has gotten in the way of good entertainment and quality storytelling.
The problem with this film isn't just that it's not a good film (though, truly, it isn't very good); its problem is that it should probably never have been made. Here's why: The basic conflict in this kind of movie, by definition, is between paranoia and reality. Krause's character, however, is set up to be obviously paranoid. In any suspense thriller, a filmmaker must work *against* expectations. And in a *really* good suspense thriller, the filmmaker should even work against the expectation that he or she will be working against expectation. And in a truly *exceptional* film of this kind, you can repeat this process and flip reality several times.
'Civic Duty' takes no such steps. Terry is suspicious about his neighbor from the first time he sees him, though for no real reason except overexposure to news media. There is very little effort (indeed, perhaps none at all) made to make the viewer suspect that perhaps the neighbor is, in fact, nefarious. We're simply waiting around to see how badly Krause will unravel.
But that *still* doesn't address the heart of this movie's problem, which is that in the overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry, it would be all but impossible to make a movie in which a character is paranoid about a mysterious Middle Eastern neighbor, only to find that said neighbor *is* in fact a "terrorist." It would be somewhat gutsy film-making, in fact, to make such a movie. And since Terry is riddled with paranoia, the filmmakers spoon-feeding us with several minutes of news footage and Bushspeak before the movie even gets underway, the movie simply has nowhere to go.
And that's what it does. It goes nowhere.
It would have worked better if it had been done the opposite way. Perhaps Terry could have a long-time friend or co-worker who's Middle Eastern. Perhaps a third party, an FBI agent or even his wife, could voice suspicions. Terry would defend his friend right to the end, only to end up going down in flames with him when the truth was finally revealed. That would have at least loaned a touch of dramatic irony.
Or perhaps the FBI agent, or lead investigating character, could have himself been Middle Eastern, and the film could have shown that character's inner struggle: not wanting to believe that this hard-working master's candidate had something to hide vs. doing his duty to protect the American public, frustrated by always being required to investigate people of his own ethnic background. Of course, that would require the absence of Richard Schiff, who in my opinion was the movie's only saving grace (man, do I miss 'The West Wing').
Here's an even better scenario. Terry could have come to his senses about his paranoia toward the end of the second act. Amidst his embarrassment, he could have become reluctant friends with Gabe. Then he could discover that, not Gabe himself, but Gabe's associates at the copy shop were part of a terrorist cell and were 'using' Gabe as an unwitting 'mule' (or whatever). This would then provide motivation for Terry to again take action. His reluctance to end up looking foolish again would be outweighed by a sense of duty (nay, 'civic' duty) to Gabe, whom he is now motivated to protect since he put him through such an ordeal to begin with. Of course, Gabe would be reluctant to believe this. And perhaps the audience would again suspect that Gabe himself is knowingly involved. But in the end, it would be Gabe who would give his life to destroy the cell, thereby becoming a hero and doing his 'civic duty.'
And there you have it: You could have had a good movie, and still been politically correct. Hell, the 'bad guys' don't even have to end up being Middle Eastern. They could have been pale white corporate crooks, perhaps selling information or materials to "terrorists" who themselves are never seen. The only Middle Easterner in the film would turn out to be the hero. Then you could have your movie and still be *completely* politically correct.
But as it stands, 'Civic Duty' goes exactly where you think it's going to go the moment you see the photo on the DVD box and read the description. Because it has nowhere else to go.
Which brings me back to my original point: Who the heck greenlights such projects?? How can you set out to make a suspense thriller when the outcome, for largely political reasons, is practically a foregone conclusion. I'm really not trying to advance my own ideology here. I'm just demonstrating how politics has gotten in the way of good entertainment and quality storytelling.